♡ 91 ( +1 | -1 ) Computer vs HumanWho plays the more interesting game of Chess? Who would you rather play? I made a remark in another topic, that computers may come to out compute us, but will never play with the wealth of interesting ideas that a human puts into a game. About 4 days a year, I will sit down and play vs Computer, computer, comtuper, et al, and while the day away at it. Other than that, I would rather play vs a human any day. Most any human. How do you feel about it? Do you live to beat your own diabolical machine? (I will admit to being fascinated with them around the year that the Fidelity s started to crack 1900) I do like the thought of some machines having modular personalities & styles, but have not really gotten into playing in that mode much. Does it make a big difference? To maintain one"s interest in the games produced?
♡ 39 ( +1 | -1 ) Well I think that theOriginal Poster here comes on a little strong. And certainly seems opinionated about chess computers. So bear in mind that he is from an era where computers only played tic tac toe and bad checkers. :) So if you love your Chess machine, I"d especially like to know. Maybe I am just doing something wrong with mine. How do you keep the relationship fresh and vital?! :))
♡ 26 ( +1 | -1 ) No love for chess against a machineFor me, Chess is a very human activity. I understand why it is useful to use a data base, but playing a game against a computer or using a computer to select your moves in a game against a person seems pointless. Your mileage may vary.
♡ 106 ( +1 | -1 ) CC vs ComputerWould Garry Kasparov, or today's best human chess player, be able to beat the best computer, if the human was allowed to play in a Correspondence Chess style of play? The reason I say this is because computers and humans do not play on a level board. The computer is allowed to look up thousands/millions of opening variations much in the same way as a person might play CC using ChessBase. Also, the computer, in its memory, is assessing variations as if actually moving the pieces (very quickly) much like having an Analyze Board feature, whereas Kasparov in the famous games played OTB. We know that computers can analyze millions of variations in very quick time, but would a human's positional superiority be shown if playing in CC mode, where tactical blunders no matter how minor would be minimised? One of the first things I learned when taking up chess was that you needed to have a plan. When I play a computer, it doesn't seem to have one, but nonetheless it makes extremely strong moves!
♡ 78 ( +1 | -1 ) Recall that old tag......about playing 'in accordance with the demands of the position'? When you think about it, if you are playing in this way, you don't need a plan. Or maybe that IS the plan! I've always preferred to play the man, not the board (which is why I admire Tal and Lasker ... yes, and Fischer, after a fashion ... they never lost sight of the fact that sitting opposite was another human-type being). And a plan is a human way of 'anchoring' one's play, though I have seen it argued that planning in chess isn't quite the long-range ordering of future events that one would normally expect... This is possibly why playing a computer isn't really satisfying in the long run - a bit like McDonalds versus good old home cooking... Perhaps computer chess ought to be called 'McChess'?
♡ 207 ( +1 | -1 ) tag? you talking to me?lol....I respong to this thread on 2 counts: a) just couldn't resist the reference to my id & b) I bought the Shredder software about a month ago and have been getting killed by it. I sat down last night for approximately my 20th game vs. that demon. I finally beat him (at ELO 1890 strength). Here is the game along with it's own analysis: . . . . [Event "Blitz:90'+5""] [Site "?"] [Date "2006.05.10"] [Round "?"] [White "Shredder 9"] [Black "Gilbreath, Thomas"] [Result "0-1"] [ECO "E12"] [WhiteElo "1890"] [Annotator "Shredder 9 (15s)"] [PlyCount "108"]
♡ 36 ( +1 | -1 ) computer correspondencejohnrowell, I would expect the human to still excel at correspondence chess. Because of the the huge number of possible moves in the middle game, doubling its thinking time does not double the number of moves into the future the computer can see. It progresses at a much slower rate.
♡ 60 ( +1 | -1 ) No fun... Usually when I play chess, I'm surrounded by lost of friends or at leats people that I know. They're always kibitzing and coming up with hilarious lines as the game unfolds. No computer has yet made a joke or come back with a snappy remark. That and the look of someone's face after you just crushed them with a Kingside attack are two reasons why I'll always preffer human chess to computer chess. Also, after you've beat your program once, the challenge disappears and all the drive to play versus the silicon monster disipates.
♡ 25 ( +1 | -1 ) stendharHowever, there IS a program out there on the market that will INSULT YOU, while you play! :) I am not sure which one it is tho. (As if I dont get enough insults playing blitz across the Net!! Today ran into a Good Sport tho, which makes it worthwhile in the end. :)
♡ 33 ( +1 | -1 ) That's not what I meantI am not a masochist. I do not play chess to get insulted. I play chess to see human creativity born. Be it with a witty remark, a good move or something else, there is nothing a computer can produce in that area. It may make good moves, but it is incredible sterile to inspire anything compared to a human played game.
♡ 66 ( +1 | -1 ) computer vs humanjohnrowell said that computers r aloud 2 look up openings and this is sort of like cheating. i agree with that.if u turn opening book of then the computer would have a much harder time beating the best players in the world.some chess computers let u typ in a name.like ronald macdonald 4 example then u can turn opening book off and set it 2 play attacking chess.another player could b called madona 4 example. on madona u can leave opening book on and set it 2 play a defensive game.this way u get 2 play some one u know and every player has there own style and level of play.
♡ 55 ( +1 | -1 ) computer vs humani had lots of chess computers that i used 2 play b 4 i played people on the net.in some ways they r like playing people. the thing about chess is u need a opponent and there is not always a human opponent that wants 2 play when u do.with a chess computer u can get a game any time u want.i still have my old chess challenger 7 that i got back in the early seventies.it did not work at first so i got it sent in 4 repairs and it has worked ever since. i have owned about 15 chess computers over the years.
♡ 64 ( +1 | -1 ) computer vs humanone thing i like about some computer programs is the way they let u type in a name. i gave 2 examples earlier ( ronald macdonald and madona) . they then let u have a wide variety of openings that u can give 2 each player.here r some examples.u can set the players in many ways. gambit openings, weird openings clasical openings or modern openings. u can also program them 2 play the opening that the famous players liked playing . fischer and karpov 4 example.some times u spend so much time setting up the players that u never get around 2 playing chess.
♡ 42 ( +1 | -1 ) computer vs humanccmcacollisters question was who plays the more ineresting game? i think people play the more interesting game but computers r a close second.with computers u can play openings most people never play and they do a lot of other chess related stuff. whether u play a human or computer opponent in chess it is still 10 times better than playing any other type of game.