Atheistforums.com

Arts and Entertainment => Film, Music, Sports, and more => Topic started by: Farroc on March 02, 2013, 09:36:09 AM

Title: The chess thread!
Post by: Farroc on March 02, 2013, 09:36:09 AM
I think it's about time we had a chess thread. Here you can organize online chess matches between yourselves, discuss various strategies and techniques, get tips, learn chess from someone on here, or just make snide remarks about how chess is for nerds and go back to the NFL thread. :lol:
Title:
Post by: Plu on March 03, 2013, 11:45:54 AM
Of all games, you had to pick chess :P Can't you pick a more interesting one?
Title: Re:
Post by: wolf39us on March 03, 2013, 12:00:54 PM
Quote from: "Plu"Of all games, you had to pick chess :P Can't you pick a more interesting one?

Helllooooo

Chess IS definitely interesting
Title:
Post by: _Xenu_ on March 03, 2013, 12:05:18 PM
I have to admit, probably to the annoyance of the OP, that I've never seen any point in taking it up. Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov way back in 1997, and he's widely considered the best human chess player that will ever live.
Title: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 03, 2013, 12:09:52 PM
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I have to admit, probably to the annoyance of the OP, that I've never seen any point in taking it up. Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov way back in 1997, and he's widely considered the best human chess player that will ever live.

Very true that Kasparov lost to deep blue, but it took years to develope DB to the point where he could beat Kasparov.  Your point that he is the greates human player ever is debatable though.  Some would argue Fischer as the best, others would think Tal.  Tal did have some awesome strategies that he pulled off.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: _Xenu_ on March 03, 2013, 12:14:21 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "_Xenu_"I have to admit, probably to the annoyance of the OP, that I've never seen any point in taking it up. Deep Blue defeated Gary Kasparov way back in 1997, and he's widely considered the best human chess player that will ever live.

Very true that Kasparov lost to deep blue, but it took years to develope DB to the point where he could beat Kasparov.  Your point that he is the greates human player ever is debatable though.  Some would argue Fischer as the best, others would think Tal.  Tal did have some awesome strategies that he pulled off.
My overall point though, was that humans can't compete with advanced computer AI's. You can argue that one Grandmaster was better than another, but in the end it doesn't matter. Chess is ultimately a game of mathematical brute force, in which computers have an extreme advantage.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Plu on March 03, 2013, 12:20:04 PM
Quote from: "wolf39us"
Quote from: "Plu"Of all games, you had to pick chess :P Can't you pick a more interesting one?

Helllooooo

Chess IS definitely interesting

Chess is one of those games where getting better involves reading lots of books on other people playing the game, which is pretty much the opposite of a game that's interesting to play :P And especially with chess that starts almost right off the bat.

Also as others here have posted, it's a game that can quite easily be brute forced, which is generally also a game that's not a lot of fun, especially not on a competetive level.

I enjoyed playing chess when I was younger, but it pretty much lost it's appeal years ago. We can do so much better these days in any category by which you measure games except 'old'. (Well, even when you want to play an old game you could pick Go, that's supposed to be much better.)
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 03, 2013, 12:24:48 PM
Quote from: "_Xenu_"My overall point though, was that humans can't compete with advanced computer AI's. You can argue that one Grandmaster was better than another, but in the end it doesn't matter. Chess is ultimately a game of mathematical brute force, in which computers have an extreme advantage.

Eventually yes, but it takes a long time to feed those AI's.  It's a never ending cycle between human and computer.  Humans have the advantage of "confusing" a computer by throwing all the comutations they have learned off.  Computers have the advantage of quickly analyzing lines and mathematically solving the line.  I have beaten Chessmaster by making little moves that seem insignificant to it as computer programs rarely think past three or four moves.
Title:
Post by: _Xenu_ on March 03, 2013, 01:01:03 PM
If you can use the strategy you describe to defeat an advanced AI like Deep Blue, I might consider taking up the sport. Besides, I read somewhere that Deep Blue plans thousands of moves in advance. And that was in 1997. But the thing about software though, is its non-rival nature. It can be infinitely copied. Once Deep Blue exists it no longer matters how difficult programming a rival would be.
Title: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 03, 2013, 02:09:56 PM
Quote from: "_Xenu_"If you can use the strategy you describe to defeat an advanced AI like Deep Blue, I might consider taking up the sport. Besides, I read somewhere that Deep Blue plans thousands of moves in advance. And that was in 1997. But the thing about software though, is its non-rival nature. It can be infinitely copied. Once Deep Blue exists it no longer matters how difficult programming a rival would be.

That strategy can.  Kasparov beat Deep Blue in their first encounter by a score of 4-2 by not following lines.  He lost in 1997 after DB was upgraded, but he suspected human intervention.  IBM denied it and refused to give out the logs, they eventuallt published the logs much later (giving them time to change anything if needed).  After Kasparov offered a rematch they dismantled DB and got rid of his programming.  I don't think you will ever see anything like DB again.
Title:
Post by: Plu on March 03, 2013, 02:38:29 PM
The funny thing is that due to how fast computing power rises, you can probably run deep blue or an equally powerful algorithm on your current home PC if you feel like it. And it'll only get worse from here on out.
Title: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 03, 2013, 05:51:31 PM
Quote from: "Plu"The funny thing is that due to how fast computing power rises, you can probably run deep blue or an equally powerful algorithm on your current home PC if you feel like it. And it'll only get worse from here on out.


With advancements in recent techology, I wouldn't surpirsed if you could run better algorithms than that.  They are on the verge of raising computing power 10x the fastest current processor.  We are talking about terabytes here.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: _Xenu_ on March 03, 2013, 07:43:47 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "_Xenu_"If you can use the strategy you describe to defeat an advanced AI like Deep Blue, I might consider taking up the sport. Besides, I read somewhere that Deep Blue plans thousands of moves in advance. And that was in 1997. But the thing about software though, is its non-rival nature. It can be infinitely copied. Once Deep Blue exists it no longer matters how difficult programming a rival would be.

That strategy can.  Kasparov beat Deep Blue in their first encounter by a score of 4-2 by not following lines.  He lost in 1997 after DB was upgraded, but he suspected human intervention.  IBM denied it and refused to give out the logs, they eventuallt published the logs much later (giving them time to change anything if needed).  After Kasparov offered a rematch they dismantled DB and got rid of his programming.  I don't think you will ever see anything like DB again.
Very well. I can't vouch for IBM one way or another and don't know what they were or weren't up to.  I am aware of the allegations that they were employing dozens of chess masters, but have to question whether that makes any sort of long term difference when it comes to an AI designed to play chess. I seriously doubt IBM got rid of the software behind Deep Blue.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 03, 2013, 07:47:33 PM
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Very well. I can't vouch for IBM one way or another and don't know what they were or weren't up to.  I am aware of the allegations that they were employing dozens of chess masters, but have to question whether that makes any sort of long term difference when it comes to an AI designed to play chess.

It does if it is something like the AI you get on on Windows chess programs.  If you have the ability to insert human moves into the frey, than it is not AI doing it.  It could have been a collaboration of many grandmasters working together.  I don't know what the truth on the matter is though.

QuoteI seriously doubt IBM got rid of the software behind Deep Blue.

Don't know, it hasn't been seen since and if the allegations of cheating are true, then I wouldn't doubt that they did just to cover it up.
Title:
Post by: _Xenu_ on March 03, 2013, 08:04:17 PM
There's no reason Windows chess programs would ever be programmed to be as difficult as Deep Blue. If they were, playing against them would be useless and no one would buy the software. Regarding human interference, I don't know any more than you do. Its possible, but theres no way to know for sure, and no guarantee that if it did happen it didn't ultimately improve the AI.
Title: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 03, 2013, 08:07:16 PM
Quote from: "_Xenu_"There's no reason Windows chess programs would ever be programmed to be as difficult as Deep Blue. If they were, playing against them would be useless and no one would buy the software. Regarding human interference, I don't know any more than you do. Its possible, but theres no way to know for sure, and no guarantee that if it did happen it didn't ultimately improve the AI.

No no no, I wasn't saying that they are programmed to be that hard, the point was that they allow for human interjection.  If DB was allowed to do that than was it ever really that good?
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: _Xenu_ on March 03, 2013, 08:25:38 PM
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "_Xenu_"There's no reason Windows chess programs would ever be programmed to be as difficult as Deep Blue. If they were, playing against them would be useless and no one would buy the software. Regarding human interference, I don't know any more than you do. Its possible, but theres no way to know for sure, and no guarantee that if it did happen it didn't ultimately improve the AI.

No no no, I wasn't saying that they are programmed to be that hard, the point was that they allow for human interjection.  If DB was allowed to do that than was it ever really that good?
Your question is hypothetical and avoids important points. First, theres no way for your average Windows chess program to incorporate human intervention. If deep blue was interfered with in the way you suggest, then no it wasn't "that good." I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if you wish to assert that it did, the burden of proof is on you.
Title: Re: The chess thread!
Post by: AllPurposeAtheist on March 03, 2013, 08:35:17 PM
You have proven beyond a reasonable doubt that chess threads are more boring than used toilet paper after flushing.  :-|
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 03, 2013, 08:45:57 PM
Quote from: "_Xenu_"Your question is hypothetical and avoids important points. First, theres no way for your average Windows chess program to incorporate human intervention. If deep blue was interfered with in the way you suggest, then no it wasn't "that good." I'm not saying it didn't happen, but if you wish to assert that it did, the burden of proof is on you.

There is a way for your typical chess program to incorporate human interfereance, in fact it does as in a simple form of being able to swap from a computer opponent to a human oppenent while still in game.  I was not the one that made the assertion, I merely conveyed what started the controversy, which you in fact happened to say you knew about.
Title:
Post by: _Xenu_ on March 03, 2013, 10:29:15 PM
While its technically possible to insert a human into an online chess match, its well outside the norm. I think real life examples of this are extremely rare if existent at all.  Having said that, I admittedly should have phrased my sentence more carefully. But in any case, this conversation has strayed too far from its origin and no longer holds my interest.
Title:
Post by: Zatoichi on March 04, 2013, 12:24:06 AM
I once tried to create a new version of chess with a hexagonal board so three people could play.

Also tooled around with extending the board to 10x10 and 12x12 and creating new pieces with special capabilities.

I finally came to the conclusion that the game is perfect as it is and cannot be improved.
Title: Re:
Post by: Alaric I on March 04, 2013, 01:45:49 AM
Quote from: "Zatoichi"I once tried to create a new version of chess with a hexagonal board so three people could play.

Also tooled around with extending the board to 10x10 and 12x12 and creating new pieces with special capabilities.

I finally came to the conclusion that the game is perfect as it is and cannot be improved.

Many have tried, and I have seen a 15x15 where you get two of each of the pieces minus the rook where you only get one extra and you have to capture one king before you can win.  I have also seen what is know as "Super Chess" where when you capture a piece you gain it's power until you move like that piece.  This version sucked the most because you could win the game with 1 piece.
Title: Re: Re:
Post by: Zatoichi on March 04, 2013, 01:57:28 AM
Quote from: "Alaric I"
Quote from: "Zatoichi"I once tried to create a new version of chess with a hexagonal board so three people could play.

Also tooled around with extending the board to 10x10 and 12x12 and creating new pieces with special capabilities.

I finally came to the conclusion that the game is perfect as it is and cannot be improved.

Many have tried, and I have seen a 15x15 where you get two of each of the pieces minus the rook where you only get one extra and you have to capture one king before you can win.  I have also seen what is know as "Super Chess" where when you capture a piece you gain it's power until you move like that piece.  This version sucked the most because you could win the game with 1 piece.

Same problems I ran into... it unbalanced the game and either made it too hard to win or too easy.

But I would still like to see a way of making it a 3-player game. THAT would be very interesting since Chess is basically a metaphor for conflict and warfare, and as we all know there are often more than two participants in war.

This would open up the possibility for alliances, initially anyway... then after one player is eliminated, the game continues, etc. How to keep it balanced is the tricky part.

I came up with pieces that could change from vertical/lateral movement, like a Rook, to diagonal movement, like Bishops, only they could only change every other move so you would have to remember what it's properties were the last time it moved. Also had the diagonal equivalent of the Knight... two up, one over, but in diagonal. And a piece that could become a blocker if you chose to make no moves in the turn, but you we're barred from ever moving it again, making it a permanent block on the board, and no pieces path could go through it.

Lot's of fun playing around with different ideas though.
Title:
Post by: Plu on March 04, 2013, 02:06:08 AM
Look no further, then.

http://triplechess.com/ (http://triplechess.com/)
Title: Re:
Post by: Zatoichi on March 04, 2013, 03:28:00 AM
Quote from: "Plu"Look no further, then.

http://triplechess.com/ (http://triplechess.com/)

SWEEEET!

Looks almost just like my version but my board was all hexagons instead of triangles and the lineups were on only one edge of the big hex. I think my version had far too many spaces than this, though it looks just as confusing to play as my version, haha!  :P

Bastards beat me to it though!  #-o
Title:
Post by: Farroc on March 04, 2013, 06:08:13 AM
What if you were to put six chess boards together in a huge rectangle? Six player chess... :)  :-D  :shock:  :lol:  =D>  :rolleyes:  :P
Title:
Post by: Plu on March 04, 2013, 06:16:01 AM
I'm pretty sure that some players would be check-mate from the start if you just hook the boards up together.

Although I have once seen a 4-player chessboard as well. It had two extra rows on each side of the board where the pieces were set for each player, and the 8x8 center was empty. But it looked like it wouldn't work properly.
Title:
Post by: Jutter on March 04, 2013, 06:21:39 AM
Not much into chess, but the other day I got one of this fellow's videos instead of the usual commercial. I thought it might suit this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/user/KebuChess (http://www.youtube.com/user/KebuChess)

[youtube:38eid5dj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjIt_88BLHE[/youtube:38eid5dj]
And I came across this older video, featuring mr. Karpov.
[youtube:38eid5dj]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnRB3QjgPAo[/youtube:38eid5dj]
Title: Re:
Post by: Zatoichi on March 04, 2013, 09:49:40 PM
[spoil:32au7ipm]
Quote from: "Jutter"Not much into chess, but the other day I got one of this fellow's videos instead of the usual commercial. I thought it might suit this thread.
http://www.youtube.com/user/KebuChess (http://www.youtube.com/user/KebuChess)

Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HjIt_88BLHE)
And I came across this older video, featuring mr. Karpov.
Writer posted a YouTube video (//http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YnRB3QjgPAo)
[/spoil:32au7ipm]
I've seen that first guys videos... think I may have even subbed his channel. I'll have to check out his vids. Don't really play much anymore though...was never really all that good, too little patience, haha!
Title: Re: The chess thread!
Post by: Sal1981 on March 21, 2013, 12:05:31 PM
Been playing chess since I was 6.

I won a game against H K Simonsen (//http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1260579), drunk.

I don't know how many games I've played, or how often; I just play for fun. I don't read chess books, I hardly know the names of the many different openings. I'm not a part of a chess club, although invited on several occasions to join one. I guess I just don't like competitiveness that obscures the fun of playing chess.