KingRevolver Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dingo Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Monkey would be the guy in your golfing group that uses his foot wedge,numerous mulligans and cheats on his scorecard Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno Marty Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Even the 10th best chess program would destroy the human world champion. It's not even like taking steroids or bribing a referee. It's like taking the other guy's pieces off the board when they're not looking. It guarantees you a win, unless the other guy is using one too. So yes, I would be scared of a bot. And I understand people would be motivated to cheat if there's money on the line, but it's not even in the same universe as collecting data to make sharper lines than a book, which to me is like practicing/studying/working out, not outright cheating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRevolver Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 At least we know not to play Chess against Monkey because he's admitting he'd cheat. Just unbelievable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 No, it's closer to hacking a book and making whatever lines you want. Your analogy is way off.No. It's much closer to you being EZ Street and the bot user being Cory. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Doesn't make any sense to use a chess bot if you are playing for fun and trying to improve yourself at the game. That would be like going out to play tennis and hiring a pro to play for you while you sit and watch while sipping lemonade. BAUSIt wasn't about playing for fun. It was in direct response to Reno Marty challenging Slim to a game for money. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Even the 10th best chess program would destroy the human world champion. It's not even like taking steroids or bribing a referee. It's like taking the other guy's pieces off the board when they're not looking. It guarantees you a win, unless the other guy is using one too. So yes, I would be scared of a bot. And I understand people would be motivated to cheat if there's money on the line, but it's not even in the same universe as collecting data to make sharper lines than a book, which to me is like practicing/studying/working out, not outright cheating.Not true. See Deep Blue vs. Kasparov. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Monkey would be the guy in your golfing group that uses his foot wedge,numerous mulligans and cheats on his scorecardWouldn't catch me dead on a golf course these days. Can't think of a bigger waste of life than golfing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVU Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Monkey are you ok with poker bots playing at your tables? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno Marty Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Not true. See Deep Blue vs. Kasparov. ??? It's 2018 not 1996.There are chess programs you can install on your phone that would destroy Deep Blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRevolver Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Monkey just doesn't get it. Wow. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 ??? It's 2018 not 1996.There are chess programs you can install on your phone that would destroy Deep Blue.So, the odds of winning after a certain move have changed in chess since 1996? Interesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Monkey just doesn't get it. Wow.Exactly. You know more about computer algorithms than I do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 Monkey are you ok with poker bots playing at your tables? Unavoidable. One of the many reasons I don't play poker any more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno Marty Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 So, the odds of winning after a certain move have changed in chess since 1996? Interesting. What are you talking about? There are good models/algorithms and bad ones. Not surprisingly, they've improved over time. Around the late 90s they matched or just surpassed the best humans, and now they're way ahead. "The world champion Magnus Carlsen won't even play his computer," Soltis says. "He uses it to train, to recommend moves for future competition. But he won't play it, because he just loses all the time and there's nothing more depressing than losing without even being in the game." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 What are you talking about? There are good models/algorithms and bad ones. Not surprisingly, they've improved over time. Around the late 90s they matched or just surpassed the best humans, and now they're way ahead. "The world champion Magnus Carlsen won't even play his computer," Soltis says. "He uses it to train, to recommend moves for future competition. But he won't play it, because he just loses all the time and there's nothing more depressing than losing without even being in the game." Umm. You do understand that hardware is FAR more of a factor than software in making split second decisions. Correct? Deep Blue was a supercomputer. So, it couldn't be cloned easily at the time. Now, with advancements in hardware over the years, it can be. The algorithmic improvements to today's bots are miniscule over Deep Blue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno Marty Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 What are you even trying to argue? I said even the 10th best computer program would destroy any human. Probably even the 10th best program I can get that would run on my phone. You disagreed and said look, Deep Blue vs. Kasparov (presumably because the matches were close?). And I'm making the simple point that the programs have improved (because of a variety of factors, it doesn't matter which) to a point that they've far surpassed humans. What are you disagreeing with? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evade Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 What are you even trying to argue? I said even the 10th best computer program would destroy any human. Probably even the 10th best program I can get that would run on my phone. You disagreed and said look, Deep Blue vs. Kasparov (presumably because the matches were close?). And I'm making the simple point that the programs have improved (because of a variety of factors, it doesn't matter which) to a point that they've far surpassed humans. What are you disagreeing with? +1. Here's Anand saying that even drawing one game out of 100 against stockfish will be difficult for a human being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 It's not a guarantee that a computer wins versus the best player in the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reno Marty Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 It's not a guarantee that a computer wins versus the best player in the world. It's 99%+ (ignoring draws). So what do you think it is vs. any amateur? And there have been major improvements in the algorithms. It's not just the hardware. They've been tweaked to better understand certain positions, and I even think they don't even try to go as further down the tree anymore. Then six months ago AlphaZero stepped in and absolutely destroyed the top programs after learning the game on its own in 24 hours. Don't tell me that's all hardware.https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-future-is-here-alphazero-learns-chess I admit I don't have a clue about computers; why are you pretending to know anything about chess? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVU Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 I don't think Monkey expected Reno to know so much about chess. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KingRevolver Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 I don't think Monkey expected Reno to know so much about chess. Monkey's like, "Fuck. I actually gotta work at pretending to know what I'm talking about..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MonkeyF0cker Posted May 17, 2018 Report Share Posted May 17, 2018 It's 99%+ (ignoring draws). So what do you think it is vs. any amateur? And there have been major improvements in the algorithms. It's not just the hardware. They've been tweaked to better understand certain positions, and I even think they don't even try to go as further down the tree anymore. Then six months ago AlphaZero stepped in and absolutely destroyed the top programs after learning the game on its own in 24 hours. Don't tell me that's all hardware.https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-future-is-here-alphazero-learns-chess I admit I don't have a clue about computers; why are you pretending to know anything about chess? 99% != 100%. Which makes my statement true and yours false. Deep Blue is AI. It learns over time. Have any of the bots that can be purchased today played against Deep Blue? Of course not. Now, you're talking about AlphaZero. Which isn't a fucking bot that you can buy off the street. It's a supercomputer not unlike Deep Blue. Of course, AI algorithms are going to improve in SUPERCOMPUTERS today. Good luck loading that on your fucking phone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cyberbabble Posted May 18, 2018 Report Share Posted May 18, 2018 It's good to see the kinder, gentler Monkey was a temporary aberration. All it takes is a few minutes with Google to become an expert. ELO is a numeric ranking of chess players. It has been used for years. It can be calculated for computer chess programs. The higher the rating the better. I'll leave it to Monkey to explain how ELO is flawed and meaningless. Stockfish is a free, open source chess program. It runs on PCs, tablets, and phones. It has an ELO of 3443. Magnus Carlsen, currently the highest ranked human, has an ELO of 2843. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WVU Posted May 18, 2018 Report Share Posted May 18, 2018 Monkey scrambling and up against the ropes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.