OT: Any Chess Players here?

[MonkeyF0cker]

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.

 

I didn't say that computers weren't BETTER, genius.

 

I said they are not guaranteed to beat the best player in the world.

 

Learn to fucking read.  If I didn't have dipshits like you making stupid posts at me, I just might be kinder and gentler.

 

But I guess if someone has a higher ELO, they automatically win. 

[cyberbabble]

OK, won't ever post again.

[WVU]

99% is close enough as a guarantee. Let's see Monkey play against Reno. I 99% guarantee he won't.

[Reno Marty]

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.

 

Jesus christ... what the fuck is wrong with you? First of all, who cares if it's a guarantee or not? What's the difference between going from 50% to 99.9999999% vs. 50% to 100% win likelihood? It's irrelevant. I literally have a better chance of knocking out Floyd Mayweather or outrunning Usain Bolt backwards than beating any of the major computer programs (loaded onto my iPhone). But you're saying that because there's a 1 in a billion chance... what? I don't get it. 

 

Then, in a completely irrelevant tangent about why computer programs have improved, you've asserted it's all hardware. Bullshit. You can take the leading programs, put them on the same hardware, and you'll get some consistently coming out ahead over others. Secondly, all the existing programs have evaluation functions that have been tweaked and refined for decades. Originally they struggled in closed positions for example, and Kasparov tried to exploit that. Then they improved how computers handled them by changing the algorithm, not by letting the program learn and figure it out for itself.

 

Deep Blue did not learn on its own. You can put it on any hardware you want, but given the hardware it has, it will not improve by itself over time. The programs never learned openings themselves, they were fed massive openings databases that helped them survive the opening with decent positions. The Deep Blue team had GMs play it and when it lost they would see where it went wrong and tinker with the evaluation function. 

 

AlphaZero started with zero knowledge except the rules and figured it all out by itself. You can watch how it evolved and discarded certain openings and converged towards others. That can't be explained by hardware. Hardware just tells you the rate at which convergence is going to occur. 

 

You're really clueless on this subject, actually the most clueless person in this entire thread. Sorry.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Jesus christ... what the fuck is wrong with you? First of all, who cares if it's a guarantee or not? What's the difference between going from 50% to 99.9999999% vs. 50% to 100% win likelihood? It's irrelevant. I literally have a better chance of knocking out Floyd Mayweather or outrunning Usain Bolt backwards than beating any of the major computer programs (loaded onto my iPhone). But you're saying that because there's a 1 in a billion chance... what? I don't get it. 

 

Then, in a completely irrelevant tangent about why computer programs have improved, you've asserted it's all hardware. Bullshit. You can take the leading programs, put them on the same hardware, and you'll get some consistently coming out ahead over others. Secondly, all the existing programs have evaluation functions that have been tweaked and refined for decades. Originally they struggled in closed positions for example, and Kasparov tried to exploit that. Then they improved how computers handled them by changing the algorithm, not by letting the program learn and figure it out for itself.

 

Deep Blue did not learn on its own. You can put it on any hardware you want, but given the hardware it has, it will not improve by itself over time. The programs never learned openings themselves, they were fed massive openings databases that helped them survive the opening with decent positions. The Deep Blue team had GMs play it and when it lost they would see where it went wrong and tinker with the evaluation function. 

 

AlphaZero started with zero knowledge except the rules and figured it all out by itself. You can watch how it evolved and discarded certain openings and converged towards others. That can't be explained by hardware. Hardware just tells you the rate at which convergence is going to occur. 

 

You're really clueless on this subject, actually the most clueless person in this entire thread. Sorry.

 

Unbelievable nonsense.

 

So, you go from 99% to 1 in a billion?  LMAO.

 

Do you seriously not have any fucking clue what AI is?  Jesus Christ.  They fed the computer a database to ANALYZE the positions.  How else do you think primitive AI develops?  Out of thin air?  Find ONE computer scientist on the fucking planet that says that Deep Blue was not AI.  Un-fucking-real.

 

AlphaZero is a god damn MODERN SUPERCOMPUTER, you fucking nitwit.  You're talking about apples and oranges.  You can't seriously be this fucking dumb.

[Colonel Lingus]

you could tell monkey the sky is blue and he would argue with you that its not

[WVU]

Monkey always argues points the other person isn't arguing. Worst communicator ever.

[WVU]

This forum loses if Monkey did indeed chase off cyberbabble.

[MonkeyF0cker]

Monkey always argues points the other person isn't arguing. Worst communicator ever.

Such as?

[MonkeyF0cker]

Or do you mean that I'm arguing the original point (which was that an off the shelf bot is not guaranteed to beat the best player in the world) and other people try to wiggle out of it by pulling 1 in a billion (after 99%) out of their ass to make it appear that I'm the one arguing something different?

[Reno Marty]

Unbelievable nonsense.

 

So, you go from 99% to 1 in a billion?  LMAO.

 

Do you seriously not have any fucking clue what AI is?  Jesus Christ.  They fed the computer a database to ANALYZE the positions.  How else do you think primitive AI develops?  Out of thin air?  Find ONE computer scientist on the fucking planet that says that Deep Blue was not AI.  Un-fucking-real.

 

AlphaZero is a god damn MODERN SUPERCOMPUTER, you fucking nitwit.  You're talking about apples and oranges.  You can't seriously be this fucking dumb.

 

I said 99%+ because I didn't want to type 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. I took it for granted that you knew that any decent smartphone chess program will probably not even lose 1 in a billion games against the human world champion. And even if that chess bot isn't that good, it's impossible for a human to play a flawless 3 or 5 minute game. You really take things literally. 

 

So if you put DeepBlue or Stockfish on the same 'MODERN SUPERCOMPUTER' that AlphaZero was run on, it would have reached the level that AlphaZero did? Don't think so. AlphaZero had NO human guidance or manual tweaks to its evaluation function. Every other program that I am aware of does. You can call them both AI if you want, but they're not even in the same class.

[cyberbabble]

OK, won't ever post again.

Kinger hacked my account.

[WVU]

Whew

[MonkeyF0cker]

I said 99%+ because I didn't want to type 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999%. I took it for granted that you knew that any decent smartphone chess program will probably not even lose 1 in a billion games against the human world champion. And even if that chess bot isn't that good, it's impossible for a human to play a flawless 3 or 5 minute game. You really take things literally.

 

So if you put DeepBlue or Stockfish on the same 'MODERN SUPERCOMPUTER' that AlphaZero was run on, it would have reached the level that AlphaZero did? Don't think so. AlphaZero had NO human guidance or manual tweaks to its evaluation function. Every other program that I am aware of does. You can call them both AI if you want, but they're not even in the same class.

I don't know how many times the same thing needs to be said. AlphaZero isn't capable of running on your god damn phone. The bots that can be bought off the shelf today have extremely primitive AI which is not much different than Deep Blue. AI algorithm improvements are certainly made on MODERN supercomputers. Again, those algorithms cannot run on your phone. Modern, widely available hardware (such as your phone, tablet, laptop, etc.) is ONLY capable of running bots similar to Deep Blue.

 

I don't know how it can be stated any simpler.

[KingRevolver]

Monkey always argues points the other person isn't arguing. Worst communicator ever.

 

Monkey a good kid, but he's got to be on the spectrum.   

[BAUS]

It seems like this could only be solved by a Monkey vs Reno Marty chess match.

 

I propose Monday May 21st at 9pm EST.

 

We can probably get HR Wager or 5dimes or FHW to book this action.

 

(No bots allowed).

 

Opening odds:

 

Monkey +325

Marty-500

 

 

BAUS

[cyberbabble]

Former poker pro Monkey didn't fare to well in his heads up poker exhibition.

 

He probably wouldn't go for a chess game since he isn't even a chess pro.

 

[MonkeyF0cker]

I believe I made a previous post regarding playing chess for money and the use of bots. I will gladly play for money and stick to my word.

[MonkeyF0cker]

I guess that makes Reno's odds worse than 1/1,000,000,000 against me. Pretty nice overlay you gave me, BAUS.

[BAUS]

I guess that makes Reno's odds worse than 1/1,000,000,000 against me. Pretty nice overlay you gave me, BAUS.

No bots allowed. You are allowed to bet on yourself TO WIN ONLY.

 

BAUS

[MonkeyF0cker]

LOL. What are the repercussions for tanking/fixing the match? How are you going to catch a bot on a third party site? What are the repercussions? Will I be banned from any future TGF chess challenges offered by third party Merry Men?

[BAUS]

LOL. What are the repercussions for tanking/fixing the match? How are you going to catch a bot on a third party site? What are the repercussions? Will I be banned from any future TGF chess challenges offered by third party Merry Men?

 

Stop looking for ways to use a bot. Just play the chess match like a normal person and let the best player win. 

 

BAUS 

(Past President, Merry Men Foundation of North America)

[MonkeyF0cker]

Why would I do that when I don't know if my opponent is or isn't? 

 

Trust?  Ego?  I'll take the cash instead.

 

1/1,000,000,000.  I like my odds.  And the overlay.

[Reno Marty]

I'm guessing you'd cheat even at $20 a game? 

[Reno Marty]

To verify you'd have to send a video after of your hand making the moves, and then to verify it's you and not a third person by showing a KIA set of car keys, smashed bitcoin mining equipment, and some yayo.