>chess >pros It's funny how a $5 computer can beat

>>7839994
Chess has no longer become a game of creativity or imagination, but just a game of computation. It's a sad state of affairs desu.

That's why the Go scene has been growing, but a computer defeated a professional (2 Dan, I believe) player and also other Go AIs with perfect consistency, so yeah, board games are doomed in a way. When the game is created and nobody knows shit it's actually nice, but then it becomes over explored and all that is left is computing power and minimal lateral thinking to decide who is the better player.

>>7839994
>a $5 computer can beat the world champion

Yes, and a car is faster than Usain Bolt. Competitive chess isn't a scientific or academic exercise where you're publishing papers about game theory and perfect play. It's a sport played against other humans where things like preparation, endurance and the ability to pick the right moves under time pressure matter.

It still is impossible for a human to 'solve' chess to the extent that a computer can. That's what makes the game fun, anon. Every game state is a puzzle. Some people like solving puzzles for the sake of solving puzzles.

>>7839994
A fork-lift truck can beat the world weight-lifting champion with 100% consistency, and people still take it seriously.

Top games in chess are literally memorized computer lines for the first 30-40 moves.

It's pretty sad and boring.

>>7840026
Implying anyone on /sci/ can become a Chess champion by memorising all possible moves 30-40 deep... good luck with that.

i could use an aimbot and beat any cs pro

>>7840042
>Implying anyone on /sci/ can become a Chess champion by memorising all possible moves 30-40 deep
You don't have to memorize all possible moves, although chess grand masters do memorize several thousand variations there are often just 1-4 good moves in any given position so you just have to memorize those.

>>7840020
This is a valid argument.

>>7840054
Sure, and ultimately they arrive at a position they haven't memorised (known as the 'theoretical novelty') and then they have to play Chess.

>>7840026
There is a defined opening board state. There are a finite collection of pieces those motion is determined by the rules of chess. Of course early game is boring from a computational viewpoint.
I can see why you think watching others play chess is boring. It's like watching paint dry. I enjoy the game as a vapid pasttime, and nothing more.

there are more possible chess permutations than there are stars in the galaxy

that's pretty fucking cool

File: checked.gif (2MB, 381x434px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 381x434px

>>7839999

>>7839994

Where can you get a a computer for $5 ?

If the number of atoms in the current universe evaluate each possible configuration of the chess board from the beginning of the universe till now at the rate of 1 position per nanosecond, it still wouldn't have finished

>>7840175
Raspberry pi zero

>>7839994
>>7840026
>>7840054

>unsolved game

>>7839994
>It's funny how a $5 computer can beat the world champion in chess with 100% consistency and people still take it seriously.

What's that "it" supposed to refer to?

>>7839994
After decades of advancements in computer science and millenia of hard work in mathematics.

>>7839994
>a $5 computer
wat

Explain to me how chess or go is a more intricate and high-brow game than example dota.

>>7840329
How it is so simple, yet so complex

>>7840329
you can't math dota so autists don't like it

>>7840337
Dota is also simple, you have about a dozen different buttons that do different things. But the effects of those things change as conditions change different hero/items.
Or let's take an even simpler game, cs:go.
All you can do is switch/buy guns, shoot them, move yourself and communicate, yet you can have multitudes more different situations that require different solutions than chess could ever have.

>>7840026
this is an exaggeration
also, +20 moves opening analysis was done even before computers

>>7839994
>knights not facing forward
DELETE THIS

>>7840321
Do you live under a rock?

>>7840013
So true. Even before AI some autist -who may or may not actually be intelligent- studies the game in extreme depth and just copies others' techniques ruining the entire point of the "game" in using your own creative strategies and tactics during the game itself.

Same thing happens with video games, but slower because there's more degrees of freedom. Remember how fun starcraft was before faggots decided to make a career out of it?

>>7840013
>that's why the go scene has been growing
Nah, all the CS autists jumped on the bandwagon after Google did that thing with neuronets. You're probably one of them. Go has been as much a played game in Asia just as chess is in Europe / US.

>>7840054
Why the fuck did you click the post id the reply AND quote the entire fucking post? What the fucking fuck I've had enough of this bullshit, it's all over 4chan, the users fucking suck I hate this fucking shit fucking fuck. It's like you WANT to be called mentally retarded. You actively seek out ways to be the most imbecilic, time-wasting piece of autistic shit on this site (and that's saying a lot). Fuck you and your stupid fucking post-quoting life, you absolute fucking fuck.

>>7840550
Because it's easier to read the context with mousing over the post link you sperg, especially helpful for front page quick repliers who might not have read everything in the thread.

>>7840526
I don't understand why people don't fucking know about RaspPi, you can literally do more with it than you can do with your smart phone at 1/4 the cost of those stupid condom covers people buy to protect their screens. You can program a controller -in fucking python or whatever shitty high-level language you prefer- on it instead of buying controllers worth thousands. I mean even as an embedded chip shipped in your product it's cheaper to buy a raspi than a real microprocessors and hiring a CompE to spend months programming the low level shit.

>>7840550
Just leave.

File: 640.jpg (26KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 640x480px

>$5 computer
>Implying $5 computers exist

>>7840550
>Why the fuck did you click the post id the reply AND quote the entire fucking post? What the fucking fuck I've had enough of this bullshit, it's all over 4chan, the users fucking suck I hate this fucking shit fucking fuck. It's like you WANT to be called mentally retarded. You actively seek out ways to be the most imbecilic, time-wasting piece of autistic shit on this site (and that's saying a lot). Fuck you and your stupid fucking post-quoting life, you absolute fucking fuck.
It happens when you highlight the post and then hit the quick reply.

>>7840176
>If the number of atoms in the current universe evaluate each possible configuration of the chess board from the beginning of the universe till now at the rate of 1 position per nanosecond, it still wouldn't have finished
Right but almost all of those random move variations are completely worthless and therefore you can prune almost the entire tree. Take a database of every game where both players were over 2700+ FIDE rating and you'll realize how few variations are actually played some of them very deep.

>>7840584
R.....3.141592654 0

>>7840584
Computer is a dangerously loose term to use there, friendo :)

File: Excalibur_Keychain_LCD_Chess.jpg (61KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 500x375px

>>7839994
Indeed. It is one of the reasons I stopped playing in tournaments and following human chess.

But now there is sport in writing chess programs! I follow the world computer chess championship (was in Leiden last year), and the more rigorous TCEC, in which Komodo narrowly defeated Stockfish. It is also mindboggling that I can run both of these programs on my own PC and see a super-GM game or analysis at any time, at levels of strength beyond even Deep Blue. The ideas and tactics they find are just beautiful if you know enough chess to appreciate them.

There is even drama outside computer chess now, where past champions like Rybka are stripped of titles and banned from competition because of cheating.

Although you mention a "$5 computer", there really isn't much done these days to make the strongest program on the very cheapest toaster-grade hardware. Only kids' toys are being made on embedded systems these days. The big programs like Komodo are tailored to high-end PCs with large memory and multiple 64-bit cores. Pic: an actual $5 chess computer, which barely challenges a beginner.

>>7840329
has persisted for hundreds of years, won't be a relic of history in another twenty

>>7839994
>>7840973
>$5 computer
oh, I see. You are advertising the recent Raspberry Pi Zero. Yeah, it runs Linux and uses a 1 GHz ARM 11 and 512 MB of RAM. Stockfish or Gull will run on it and they will indeed have GM strength (though you will need way more than $5 of peripherals to enter and see its moves).

>>7840357
And how is this different than any other rpg or moba?

>>7839994
Chess is a great game but I think it's pathetic how some people dedicate the only chance at life they get to studying a fucking board game.

I often wonder if there isn't already an AI trying to take over the world right now.

>>7840137
Are you kidding me? The shannon number is [math]10^{120} [/math], far more than a google.

For comparison, there are only [math]10^{80} [/math] atoms in the entire universe.

The number of stars in our galaxy has absolutely [math]nothing[/math] on the number of possible chess games.

>>7841022
This desu senpai

>>7840329
>high-brow
It doesn't need edgydark or big titty heroes to pander to a playerbase.

>>7841069
>that feel when the number for go is 10^170
how does it feel playing a game for plebeians?

>>7841069
>For comparison, there are only 10801080 atoms in the entire universe.
Who the hell cares it something is more or less than the number of atoms in the universe? Why do people always use this for comparison? I don't think anyone really has a mental image of the amount of atoms in the universe so what's the point?

>>7841069
>For comparison, there are only 10^80 atoms in the entire universe.
>in the entire universe.
The universe might be infinite. I think you mean visible universe.

Connect 4 is a solved game and people still have fun playing it.

>>7841132
> [math] 10^{170} [/math]
>fewer than the number of planck volumes in the observable universe
Psh.

>>7839994

>its funny how a 5cents bag can asphixiate a human

>>7839999
It has always been that way though. Just like real life.

Without a time limit, isn't it true that humans play better? So in this absolute sense, humans are still better at chess.

>>7839994
>these replies

all a game is is who can outcompute each other. there is no lateral thinking in any game, ever.

even league of legends is fundamentally no different than chess, just who can assess more things and outcompute each other in a linear way.

>>7841980
Lol has reaction time, something absent from chess

>>7842013
>what is blitz chess, the thing every fucking person plays online

Sure a computer can handily beat a human chess player but it sure doesn't mean the game as played between humans isn't worth pursuing.

A different anon had it right talking about forklifts -- a forklift can outlift any human but humans still try to outlift each other, they don't give up lifting all together.

Either way still a fun way to pass the time.

>>7840346
>autists don't like dota

good one

>>7840181
>>7840526
>>7840561
a naked PCB is not a "computer" fgt pls

>>7840329
>2016
>playing assfaggots

>>7839994
Machines move faster than 100m sprinters and we watch that too.

>>7842048
why does no one play rapid online? (15 min time control) i only see people playing blitz

>>7840013

Personally I don't see how the ability for a computer to excel at a given game has any bearing on the game's value. As far as I am concerned board games are meant to be played between human opponents. Besides which the mechanism by which the human mind intuits good moves is far more interesting than what a computer does.

>>7844125
We really do need to scrap Chess though. We are talking about a game invented in the dark ages that was patched up with several ugly rules just to revive it from death. Go is an older game sure but at least it has an organic and essential structure. Stuff coming out now is a lot better than Chess because people are starting to recognize board games are mathematical objects and they can be designed with a rigorous scientific process. The value of a board game is objective and Chess is a mediocre game.

>>7844135
Corey?

>>7844174
Oh fuck... David?

>>7840263
The computer, obviously. I mean what kind of pleb doesn't pay at least $500 for their CPU alone

>>7844135
>rigorous scientific process
confirmed for never done science

>>7844105
>why does no one play rapid online? (15 min time control) i only see people playing blitz
Because they blunder 10 moves in and then run down the clock. Also the faster the time control the less engines you face.

>>7840973
>at levels of strength beyond even Deep Blue
What do you mean "even Deep Blue" I thought Moore's law meant that modern engines are far superior to deep blue, is that not true?

>Although you mention a "$5 computer", there really isn't much done these days to make the strongest program on the very cheapest toaster-grade hardware.
You can just compile stockfish for a rasperry pi, won't beat a cluster but still beat every human.

>>7844125
>Besides which the mechanism by which the human mind intuits good moves is far more interesting than what a computer does.
Unlike chess engines which just calc/eval the new AI that beat Europe #1 in Go also uses a neural net, so while it might not have been interesting in the past it's getting there.

>>7839994
the fuck does this have to do with sci? go to tg

A car is faster than any human, why ever have a land race on foot again?

>>7844179
You're dick is tasty Corey, when we hang in again?

File: reb and vodka 2.png (105KB, 500x643px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x643px

>>7845253
>>7844179
>>7844174
>tfw no /sci/ homolust 4 me

>>7845045
in popular opinion, computer chess was finished in 1997 when Deep Blue beat Kasparov. And they think that is the pinnacle because it was a custom built collection of massively parallel custom chess chips. Most aren't aware that it still had huge in efficiencies and bugs. Sadly, IBM immediately dismantled Deep Blue after the match, so we don't know exactly when software advances plus commodity SMP overtook Deep Blue's strength. I'm guessing somewhere around the start of the Rybka era in 2005, with 64-bit Xeon SMP.

>>7845034
i'd have thought you would appreciate longer time control if you actually liked the game, also engine use is pretty rare, you're just cheating yourself

>>7844894
I don't get it? Is this some Feyerabend "hurr durr science cant be objective" shit?

>>7847096
>I don't get it?
That is correct, you don't.