AlphaZero: Will People Treat Chess the Way they Treat Tic-Tac-Toe?
Sort:
Oct 2, 2020
0
#102
Tic Tac Toe is actually a quite challenging game - if you don't know the theory.
yes
Yeah....
Dec 7, 2020
0
#106
After you can perfectly play chess with 100 percent accurate moves, what sense is there in playing? The people who don’t have perfectly accurate moves will be crushed by the computers who do.
What's the point in climbing a mountain when you can just hop in a helicopter? Why bother running races when you can hop in a car? Why bother to paint a portrait when you can just take pictures? Why bother playing a game when a million other people have already beat it, posted walkthroughs, etc.
Because it's fun or challenging?
Why are these forums so old?
AlphaZero hasn't beat Stocfish yet
Sure it did.
LetsPlay226 yazdı:
AlphaZero hasn't beat Stocfish yet
It beated Stockfish 8, but Stockfish 12 is way stronger and has the highest rating.
i think a more interesting question is are humans have a chance to beat super chess engines, i lnow most will say not likely or impossible that humans beat super computers, but don't forget no m
that super computers made by humans
Jan 25, 2021
0
#115
Even if chess is "solved," no one can remember quintillions of lines of theory.
nathan_palluau wrote:
Alphazero can beat humans on any game, which is what made it so famous in the beginning. Speaking of go, we must remember that it got a lot of press coverage partly because it was the first algorithm to beat the world go champion. If the chess game must fall down because the machine can beat the human, then all board games must fall down.
It reminds me a bit of what happened with music and the emergence of certain techniques that made it difficult to evaluate the skill of a musician or singer easily, at least on the record version. For example, the possibility of accelerating the tape, or amplifying the voice, or changing the frequency. In the past, some people were very interested in an artist's performance, and could be very excited by a musician or singer who could deliver extraordinary performances; play his instrument at lightning speed, sing very high-pitched songs (see yma sumac for example - although I personally find his songs to be of more than just performance interest), or be heard in an entire opera house. Speaking of it, I realize that it concerns all art forms; the quest for the most accurate realism has been seriously questioned by the emergence of photography, for example. The oldest forms of sport are also the Olympic sports, which, perhaps because of the appearance of machines capable of surpassing human performance according to many criteria (speed, strength ...), have ended up being less interesting to the crowds to leave more room for team sports.
In many areas of culture, human performance first interests the crowds, then eventually we lose interest in this aspect to look for something deeper in the discipline in question. A discipline once allowed us to question a particular man's strengths ... now it allows us to question deeper issues and our own nature.
There was a time when we were looking for the perfect game, the best played game, and we used to forget as soon as possible the games full of mistakes.
Today we can see that this kind of "perfect" game can be generated by letting machines run for a very long time, and finally interests only few people (few people spend their days studying alphazero vs. alphazero games, even if it interests a few people anyway). On the contrary, errors tend to fascinate more; Kramnik's Qe3 against Deep Fritz has caused a lot of ink to flow and exerts on us a kind of fascination, and a vertigo regarding our own weakness as human beings that can have something somewhat exhilarating about it somehow. Chess could survive if we accept the idea that they measure our fragility rather than our strength, but our relationship to this discipline will inevitably change.
Well said 
AlphaZero taught us to not worry about draws with opposite coloured Bishops but to embrace the opportunities afforded instead. Opposite side castling plus a willingness to spend a tempo safeguarding against any future checks and building up small advantages rather than planning a grand attack were the other features of its games. Certainly food for thought.
What many of you do not realize is that while Alpha Zero is amazing it is no longer the strongest chess engine.
Also the strongest chess engine may not be the strongest chess entity..
Also strong chess masters and grandmasters often win by building up small advantages and have been doing so for many decades.
Also if "perfect game" is defined as neither side making a mistake which could change the ultimate result of the game--=-thousands of such perfect games have already been played.
