Nov-26-05
 | | Chnebelgrind: Three players of the same fate. All three FIDE World Champions and all three never really recognized to be the best. This trio symbolizes the failed politics of FIDE. |
 |
| Nov-26-05 | | TopaLove: As Hydra and Junior had the same performance, we can see that the humans didnīt play high level chess. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | Conde de Montecristo: <Three players of the same fate. All three FIDE World Champions and all three never really recognized to be the best. This trio symbolizes the failed politics of FIDE> thats a fact, i dont understand why they didnt choose Topalov, Anand and some young figure; i tought they were going to loose more games, what a shame, they keep inviting weak players. |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | lopium: I'm not really surprised by the results. Vive Hydra! Viva Hydra!! |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | catfriend: What's surprising is that the defeat wasn't even more painful... |
|
| Nov-26-05 | | Conde de Montecristo: Hydra must loose some day, but it seems very far away, a hurra for Hydra!!!! |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | lopium: Hydra is not obligated to lose one day. Imagine if they update it constanly! And the one who will beat it will be a computer for sure. Well, I think! |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | child of my tears: I think Hydra will lose one day. Topalov came very close here: Topalov vs Hydra, 2004
and maybe even missed a win in the endgame:
http://www.chessbase.com/eventartic... But possibly this was an inferior version of Hydra to the one currently in use. |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | babakova: <thats a fact, i dont understand why they didnt choose Topalov, Anand and some young figure; i tought they were going to loose more games, what a shame, they keep inviting weak players.> that "some young figure" is exactly Ponomariov... And he is not weak by the way. |
|
| Nov-27-05 | | lopium: child of my tears, yeah, once I read that the Hydra of 2005 is stronger than before.... So if they continue to update it on the right way, I wonder who will beat it, if human. |
|
| Nov-30-05 | | ellinor01: Maybe old Rubuntovich in 1930 shape would have managed the endgames much better than thses fellows? |
|
| Dec-03-05 | | Dionyseus: <ellinor01> Perhaps, but would his 1930's opening knowledge allow him to reach a favorable endgame in this day of age? |
|
| Dec-03-05 | | ughaibu: Who was Rubuntovich? |
|
Dec-04-05
 | | Rodrigo Gutierrez: I don't understand what all the fuss is about. No human can run as fast as a car: now the time has come when no human can beat a computer in chess. I think this would be true of these three guys or the true three best palyers in the world. No one should feel embarassed about it, any more than you feel embarassed about riding in your car to get places faster than you would on foot. |
|
Dec-05-05
 | | OneArmedScissor: <Rodrigo Gutierrez>
I completely agree. Computers will be better than humans at chess one day. |
|
Dec-12-05
 | | norami: The combined rating of the machines was 2809. That sounds about right. Of course ten years from now they'll be 3200 and win every game against any human. A few decades after that they'll be mentally superior to current humans in every way - and still improving exponentially. What happens after that? No man can say! |
|
| Dec-12-05 | | offramp: Rubuntovich would have mullered these lumps of tin. |
|
| Dec-23-05 | | whatthefat: <A few decades after that they'll be mentally superior to current humans in every way - and still improving exponentially. What happens after that? No man can say!>
What a preposterous argument. Computers still calculate much more slowly, and far less efficiently (around a factor of 10^10 difference) than the human brain. Computers have been able to add and multiply much more quickly than humans for several decades, if not longer. That doesn't say much about anything else. You have to differentiate useful calculations, and the human brain is essentially an optimized computer for dealing with the world presented. A computer might match or even exceed it in one respect, but it will never do a better job at what the brain is designed to do. |
|
| Jan-18-06 | | THE pawn: What's noticable is that Hydra never even allowed a single draw with the white pieces. Each time he has them, not a single GM was able to achieve a mere draw. Not even a draw, that's impressive. And not I don't count Nickel's win over the computer. The advantages he had were ridiculous. It's like a 100-meter race between a human and a jet, but you allow a 12 seconds advance for the human runner. |
|
| Jan-29-06 | | whatthefat: <THE pawn>
Not even. More like a jet vs. a jet, with one jet getting 12 seconds advance. |
|
| Jan-05-07 | | xbobmcjose: The biggest difference between a computer and a human, chess player, is that humans are aware of which moves are important, therefore much more selective about what to analyze. That is how we are able to beat computers that calculate billions times faster than us. |
|
| Jan-05-07 | | s4life: <whatthefat> computers have been only around for 50 years or so... none really knows what's going to happen in 500 years (if humans still exist at that time), but one cannot be at fault for attempting to extrapolate where evolution is going... after all it doesn't matter if the origin is artificial or natural, evolution, like many other things is all about timing. |
|
| Nov-06-08 | | patzer of patzers: <xbobmcjose> But our selectiveness is exactly what causes us to miss brilliant, unpredictable moves sometimes. |
|
