AI’s Grandmaster Status Overshadows Chess Scandal
spectrum.ieee.org
spectrum.ieee.org
When will chess become a competition where players are wired into conspicuous super computers? Imagine: electrodes rapidly shocking the players, and it won't be uncommon to see players dying from cardiac arrest right in the middle of the game.
Niemann just needs to start a new league.
Stephen King probably wrote a book about that, I suppose.
No one will watch a competition between two self-driving identical Mazdas racing down the road.
Something simple to begin with: let computers play the odd moves and humans the even moves, without any communication. This way, the computer would need to play in a way that would make sense to their team mate.
With alternate strokes, the better player will not only execute their shot, they will arrange to leave a shot that their teammate can easily make.
---
But all that being said, if such a game becomes popular, cheating will still be a thing as the team will always benefit from having the strongest possible human player.
But if the software is different, sure, why not? The Robot soccer leagues had a league where the platform is literally identical, all teams buy some Nao robots from Aldebaran Robotics, they have a coloured indicator so you know which team is which - but the matches certainly aren't like watching a mirror, if one team has programmed a vastly improved dribbling strategy or the other team's ball tracking isn't very good, it's pretty obvious who wins that.
Humans can no longer usefully assist chess computers. So all a human is doing is attempting to obey simple movement instructions, which isn't even a sport.
That depends entirely on how it is presented. Over 13 million people watched these inanimate marbles[1] compete in a variety of races.
Each engine plays both sides of the position (white and black) so it's always a bit of a cool upset when an engine wins both the white and black side of the same starting position.
Computers beat humans, but human+computer is still stronger than a computer alone.
0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess#Online_tourname...
The ICCF organizes matches, maintains rating lists, grants titles including grandmaster, and organizes a world championship for computer-assisted chess games. Check them out [1] and stop making claims about a style of chess that you are obviously not familiar with.
All that really happens in modern ICCF championships after the opening is babysitting engines and taking their top move(s). The human part is mainly picking and running the engine(s).
Because it's obvious to the community the website serves. ICCF having banner on their homepage saying "human + computer > computer" would make about as much sense as USA Track & Field having a banner on their homepage saying "Did you know running on your feet is faster than running on your hands?"
> which is to be expected since you are simply wrong.
This is a shocking level of arrogance for someone whose knowledge of the computer-assisted chess scene was limited to a Wikipedia stub a few hours ago.
There is a whole field of "anti-computer strategy" in computer-assisted chess. Humans study the weaknesses of engines to figure out how to exploit them in their opponents' play (and avoid them in their own play). Here [1] is an article discussing the general idea. Here [2] is a post by an ICCF player discussing why human+computer beats computer and giving an example of one of his own games. Here [3] is a a traditional chess GM discussing what the human player brings to the board in a computer-assisted chess game and warning against blindly trusting the computer. Here [4] is an ICCF world champion talking about how the human player steers the engine by feeding it ideas and avoiding positions where engines are known to have problems. Here [5] is another ICCF world champion talking about how his approach is to come up with ideas himself and then see whether the computer refutes them, rather than looking at what the computer suggests in a position.
Is that enough for you, or are you going to stubbornly continue to argue from your position of ignorance?
[1] https://iccfworldzone.com/cc-anti-computer-and-centaur-chess...
[2] https://www.reddit.com/r/chess/comments/4av9fe/correspondenc...
[3] https://www.iccf.com/Message.aspx?message=225
[4] https://en.chessbase.com/post/better-than-an-engine-leonardo...
>Anti-computer playing is now irrelevant against engines as they can beat any human by the tactical strenght of standard engines or by the deeper evaluations of new neural network ones.
The second is a reddit comment which only implies they can maybe improved on a low-depth old version (lichess') version of Stockfish. Particularly unconvincing as an engine could also make progress even if it thinks it cant as more moves happen and it can see further, and as they tried multiple things, and then went back effectively just having their engine explore more paths deeper.
The third one is from 2008, when yes you could improve on strong engines consistently.
The fourth is from 2016, just before the 2017 breakpoint and possibly the last time you could improve on them.
The fifth one is from 2015. ditto.
There is a reason that there aren't links of say a team winning against the TCEC winner or anything solid proving your point.
In the meantime, I'm still waiting for solid proof that running on your feet is faster than running on your hands. Why isn't this information anywhere on USA Track & Field?????
World record for 20m running on hands is 4.78s[0]. You can find plenty of <3s 0-20m from foot races[1]. That's how easy it is to prove claims with references when the claims are correct.
0. https://eu.indeonline.com/story/news/2021/10/05/zion-clark-f...
1. https://speedendurance.com/2012/08/09/usain-bolt-20-meter-sp...
An new iPhone can run the latest chess engines at a level that should beat all but the absolute best players (https://www.hiarcs.com/iphone-chess.html).
Apple doesn't publish power stats for their A-series chips that I could find, and I couldn't find a direct comparison of power draw running a chess engine, but Anandtec's numbers running synthetic benchmarks indicate between 3-5 watts when under single thread load: https://www.anandtech.com/show/16983/the-apple-a15-soc-perfo....
Estimates for human brain energy consumption are vague, but generally accepted somewhere between 12-25 watts, with 20 being the most used average guess (https://www.quora.com/How-much-energy-does-a-human-brain-con..., https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/thinking-hard-cal..., https://www.munichre.com/topics-online/en/digitalisation/int...)
Given these numbers, not infeasible to assume that a computer restricted to the energy usage of the human brain would win every game when not playing Magnus?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jAdG-iTilWU
RIP Phil Hartman, the greatest SNL actor of all time.
More articles for you: Water turns out to be wet."
Computers have been at 3000+ ELO on consumer hardware for a decade.
It's like saying "blue things are things that are painted blue, but blue paint isn't painted blue, so it's not blue." Paint is the thing that makes the things blue, and is blue itself.
I think that was happening 500 years ago. That change is subtle.
This has been debunked (just google it), and this confirms for me that this is very shallow journalism.
It's also wrong - the charge was that his score was 'perfect' (100%) across too many games, not 'nearly perfect'.
We don’t ride horses the way we did before because we now have transport and cars and trucks.
We still run and bike and gym. Sometimes to commute, and sometimes for fitness. Not everyone can be Usain Bolt, but the trails and tracks are full all week long.
There are more people riding horses than ever - it has become a hobby for the upper middle class, head to the exburbs of any US city and you will see lots of people who work in the city and come home to their horses every night.
Back before cars oxen were preferred for most tasks needing animal power - they were stronger and ate less food. Where speed mattered though the horse was better. Of course before the car people walked unless they were disabled - the horse/oxen were for pulling cargo or the plow, but either way you walked behind (it wasn't unheard of for the wagon driver to lead the team, though often they would sit on the wagon).
If you lived in a city (remember before tractors 95% of the population lived on a farm!) you probably didn't have any animal transport at all: they ate too much food. On the farm animal labor was useful, so if the farm could support it you would have it (many farms couldn't, and slaves were potentially more useful for the rest)
There seems to be a "reverse Balto/Togo" effect here. Pheidippides did NOT run the famous "Marathon".
Pheidippides ran the 150-mile journey from Athens to Sparta (and back: 300 total miles) and then died.
The "Marathon to Athens" 26.4 mile journey was another heroic messenger, but someone who was mistaken for Pheidippides. It seems very unlikely for Pheidippides to be the messenger because he'd have been tired (and/or dead) from his Athens / Sparta message.
Quaint or not, people find meaning in their unnecessary efforts, sometimes enough meaning to bet their own lives.
1. Spelling bees
2. Horse races
3. Rifle competitions
4. Weightlifting
All of those could be won by a machine or computer and each one went through it's Casey Jones moment, and each is still being done.
For actual "work" the human aspect is often not used anymore.