• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

We are in the era of the greatest chess player of all time

Paltheos

Member
Feb 28, 2015
1,871
45
330
Interesting quote from the wiki:

"[Carlsen] has been known to say that he isn't all that interested in opening preparation; his main forte is the middlegame, in which he manages to outplay many of his opponents with positional means. ... Carlsen's repertoire is aimed at avoiding an early crisis in the game. He invariably aims for middlegames that lend themselves to a strategic approach." - GM Jan Timman

As an amateur player this seems obvious to me. Rather than memorizing a myriad of openings and what not to play, strengthen your middle and endgames.
I was thinking about why a GM would say something like this, but maybe the takeaway is that us lesser mortals just aren't on his level because he doesn't need to worry about playing dead end moves early on. (I've only been thinking about this for like 5 minutes and don't know much about this guy or top level play so sorry ChessGAF)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Wwg1wga

Mister Apoc

Member
Aug 6, 2017
606
222
375
Interesting quote from the wiki:

"[Carlsen] has been known to say that he isn't all that interested in opening preparation; his main forte is the middlegame, in which he manages to outplay many of his opponents with positional means. ... Carlsen's repertoire is aimed at avoiding an early crisis in the game. He invariably aims for middlegames that lend themselves to a strategic approach." - GM Jan Timman

As an amateur player this seems obvious to me. Rather than memorizing a myriad of openings and what not to play, strengthen your middle and endgames.
I was thinking about why a GM would say something like this, but maybe the takeaway is that us lesser mortals just aren't on his level because he doesn't need to worry about playing dead end moves early on. (I've only been thinking about this for like 5 minutes and don't know much about this guy or top level play so sorry ChessGAF)
if you compare Magnus to someone like Fabiano or Anish, they tend to be better prepared than him in the opening but play worse in the middlegame/endgame than Magnus
 

iconmasterX

Member
Jan 27, 2018
3,445
4,672
590
Neat.

I've been thinking about computers a bit in the way they tackle things like chess or Go. They run down tens of thousands of nodes per second in a game tree and find the move that wins the most times. It's like going fishing with ten thousand baited lures in the lake. You'll probably beat one guy with a pole, no matter how experienced he is.

No accomplished fisherman would be impressed if you topped his daily catch in that way. You might as well toss in a stick of dynamite.

We don’t think much of the brute-force approach when humans attempt it, but it’s all a computer can do.
 

MrTickles

Member
Feb 22, 2018
2,978
3,907
650
No one can beat him, but something can. Bend to the will of our machine overlords.
 

Pagusas

Member
Jun 9, 2006
10,970
1,174
1,400
Prosper, Tx
Neat.

I've been thinking about computers a bit in the way they tackle things like chess or Go. They run down tens of thousands of nodes per second in a game tree and find the move that wins the most times. It's like going fishing with ten thousand baited lures in the lake. You'll probably beat one guy with a pole, no matter how experienced he is.

No accomplished fisherman would be impressed if you topped his daily catch in that way. You might as well toss in a stick of dynamite.

We don’t think much of the brute-force approach when humans attempt it, but it’s all a computer can do.
It will be interesting when we eventually find a way to make a true AI that doesn’t rely on such methods.
 
  • Like
Reactions: pr0cs

sahlberg

Gold Member
Oct 27, 2017
2,007
2,399
490
Moore Park Beach
if you compare Magnus to someone like Fabiano or Anish, they tend to be better prepared than him in the opening but play worse in the middlegame/endgame than Magnus
True, but if instead of chess-pieces we replace it with spear combat? It would make chess much better and more interesting to watch.

Chess-pieces so primitive.
 

Kazza

Member
Oct 6, 2018
1,284
1,723
560
Neat.

I've been thinking about computers a bit in the way they tackle things like chess or Go. They run down tens of thousands of nodes per second in a game tree and find the move that wins the most times. It's like going fishing with ten thousand baited lures in the lake. You'll probably beat one guy with a pole, no matter how experienced he is.

No accomplished fisherman would be impressed if you topped his daily catch in that way. You might as well toss in a stick of dynamite.

We don’t think much of the brute-force approach when humans attempt it, but it’s all a computer can do.
As I understand it, the number of different possible moves in Go is so great that even the most powerful supercomputer wouldn't be able to consider all possible moves. As such, there is something that could be called intuition at play here (AlphaGo is trained by playing many different games against itself, and it often makes very creative moves that human players think are a mistake until they realise they have been beaten).

What's interesting to me is that people continue to play chess professionally, despite being outclassed by computers. It suggests that people will still continue to make art, music etc long after AI beats humans in those fields too.
 

Mister Apoc

Member
Aug 6, 2017
606
222
375
its funny how society rates chess as a 'real' intellectual sport, yet Chess is simpler than any modern multiplayer game.
Hell I respect dota players more technically and mentally.
Chess is a game with perfect information, literally no luck involved,

multiplayer games can be complex, but there are elements of luck and randomization in there that don't make it as rigorous as chess

lol at chess is "simple" say that to a Grandmaster
 
Last edited:

Ulysses 31

Member
Nov 24, 2013
3,651
1,638
565
But Neil DeGrasse Tyson said that on Bill Maher show that the computer smoked the best chess player in the world. :p
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,805
7,227
1,340
its funny how society rates chess as a 'real' intellectual sport, yet Chess is simpler than any modern multiplayer game.
Hell I respect dota players more technically and mentally.
you have my sword in this debate, last time we did this tho things got pretty hostile
 

Panda1

Member
Jan 12, 2010
1,005
505
935
Chess is a game with perfect information, literally no luck involved,

multiplayer games can be complex, but there are elements of luck and randomization in there that don't make it as rigorous as chess

lol at chess is "simple" say that to a Grandmaster
Adding unknown variobkes makes the game harder not eaier. .in chess their is a finite level of movessels. .a computer used to brute force simulating moee moves..this is nearly impossibe in modern online games.

I'm not trying to disrespect chess..I have been playing and even had lessons as a kid but let's not kid ourselves it's some pinnacle of intellectual games.
 

iconmasterX

Member
Jan 27, 2018
3,445
4,672
590
What's interesting to me is that people continue to play chess professionally, despite being outclassed by computers.
It suggests that the point of the game is that it's played by humans. We designed it for ourselves for the entertainment and intellectual challenge. It was never a "problem" to be solved, until computers came along. (Though if computer scientists want to use those games as a jumping-off point to explore new kinds of algorithms, I have no problem with that. But keep the distinctions straight.)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Coulomb_Barrier

Hulk_Smash

Member
Jan 8, 2014
491
406
585
Adding unknown variobkes makes the game harder not eaier. .in chess their is a finite level of movessels. .a computer used to brute force simulating moee moves..this is nearly impossibe in modern online games.

I'm not trying to disrespect chess..I have been playing and even had lessons as a kid but let's not kid ourselves it's some pinnacle of intellectual games.
From chess.com:
[How many Possible chess moves can there be in a chessgame? Over 9 million variations after just 3 moves each. 288 billion different possible positions after just 4 moves each. In a complete game there are more possible positions than there are electrons in the observable universe.
How does it feel to be mathematically wrong?

...DOTA players.... hahahahahahaha!!!
 
Last edited:

RokkanStoned

Gold Member
Jan 14, 2018
1,898
1,932
565
Norway



Brunost mothafuckas.

Really, Magnus' shape has been pretty great lately. I just want to see him break 2900. Also, Magnus sounds like he's on the verge at crying at most interviews. Sounds much better in a relaxed setting, especially when just playing banter blitz or other relaxed online matches.
I love playing chess, although I rarely spend any time at learning opening lines or end games tactics or anything. Just playing it on my phone is bliss.
 
Last edited:
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: Shifty.

Shifty.

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2015
6,641
4,714
650
Somewhere in space
From chess.com:


How does it feel to be mathematically wrong?

...DOTA players.... hahahahahahaha!!!
You do realise that one frame in a videogame is equivalent to one turn in chess where permutation math is concerned, yes?

Compound that with multiple player and AI agents that can move freely in two axes, trigger abilities and interact with the world in various ways, and the permutation count explodes to numbers in excess of a googolplex within seconds.

Check your facts before you call someone out on being mathematically wrong. Numbers are pretty unbending like that.
 
Last edited:

Panda1

Member
Jan 12, 2010
1,005
505
935
From chess.com:


How does it feel to be mathematically wrong?

...DOTA players.... hahahahahahaha!!!
Chess is not about finding winning lines, it is about avoiding losing lines. Therefore vast areas of play are never considered . The tree is heavily pruned.

I dont know if you play chess but you dont normally continually sacrifice stupid position -so your point is completely moot.
 
Feb 15, 2013
6,873
480
540
London
A high level Korean Starcraft player is more skilled. There's so many more factors and variables to consider than chess. The brain has to move much quicker in that game too.

If you aint played SC, you won't know what I mean.
 

Hulk_Smash

Member
Jan 8, 2014
491
406
585
Chess is not about finding winning lines, it is about avoiding losing lines. Therefore vast areas of play are never considered . The tree is heavily pruned.

I dont know if you play chess but you dont normally continually sacrifice stupid position -so your point is completely moot.
I could say the same for DOTA. You could wander around the map in circles never attacking each other. But, nobody does that. So, your point is moot, too. SO, we're a couple of moot boots.
 

Tesseract

Crushed by Thanos
Dec 7, 2008
34,805
7,227
1,340
if we're gonna wreak havoc with permutations, you and i could go in circles with our knights forever without touching another piece on the board
 

Shifty.

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2015
6,641
4,714
650
Somewhere in space
I could say the same for DOTA. You could wander around the map in circles never attacking each other. But, nobody does that. So, your point is moot, too. SO, we're a couple of moot boots.
The classic "I lost so I'm going to try and drag you down to my level" response :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Regardless of whether permutations are calculated with players taking useless actions or not, the permutation count of a grid-based turn-based game is always going to be lower than one with free movements that runs in real time. Dying on this hill is just going to make you look stupid.
 
Last edited:

Birdo

Member
Jun 12, 2019
387
822
290
UK
I could beat him whilst upside down, with my eyes closed, and in a vacbed.

Seriously though, that's pretty impressive. Imagine going into the history books at 28 years old.
 

Ornlu

Member
Oct 31, 2018
264
239
255
A high level Korean Starcraft player is more skilled. There's so many more factors and variables to consider than chess. The brain has to move much quicker in that game too.

If you aint played SC, you won't know what I mean.
Starcraft is ridiculous. It definitely has a "multitasking" skillset need. Just the keybinding setups and the split-second attention you need to spend in multiple different places is insane, and not something the human brain is designed to do. A "machine algorithm" would be able to easily stomp any human at the game.
 

Lanrutcon

Member
Feb 19, 2014
8,140
1,575
575
That's fantastic.

But then I watched a guy finish Dark Souls, Dark Souls 2, Dark souls 3, Demon Souls and Bloodborne (back to back) without taking a single hit.

That impressed me more.
 
  • Praise the Sun
Reactions: iconmasterX

Hulk_Smash

Member
Jan 8, 2014
491
406
585
The classic "I lost so I'm going to try and drag you down to my level" response :messenger_tears_of_joy:

Regardless of whether permutations are calculated with players taking useless actions or not, the permutation count of a grid-based turn-based game is always going to be lower than one with free movements that runs in real time. Dying on this hill is just going to make you look stupid.
I was originally responding to the post that said chess had a finite number of moves. That is simply untrue.

And I find it ridiculous that someone uses an argument but refuses or ignores the implications of applying that argument to their own premise.

Is it not true that once you consider all of the rules, counters, and goals of a game like DOTA that the number of serious or playable moves drops significantly?
 

Shifty.

Gold Member
Sep 25, 2015
6,641
4,714
650
Somewhere in space
I was originally responding to the post that said chess had a finite number of moves. That is simply untrue.
Given that your response was comprised of a quote from chess.com and some laughing, I didn't catch that bit of context.

And I find it ridiculous that someone uses an argument but refuses or ignores the implications of applying that argument to their own premise.

Is it not true that once you consider all of the rules, counters, and goals of a game like DOTA that the number of serious or playable moves drops significantly?
That statement is correct. However, even if you prune the permutation tree and remove all of the 'non-playable' moves like running in circles or standing still, the amount remaining in chess is still dwarfed by its equivalent in a real-time game.

Think of it like this- in chess, a move is composed of something like "Pawn from A2 to A3" and can take an indefinite amount of time since the game is turn-based. That's the smallest move you can make, but is immediately meaningful because you've moved 1/8th of the way across the playfield and made your opponent think about the new state of the board.

Contrast that to DOTA where one move is "Pudge from x240/y800 to x242/y796" and always takes 1/60th of a second. That takes you a measly 1/1000th (ish) of the way across the playfield and doesn't change the state of the game in a very meaningful way, but still counts as a 'valid' move if it's part of a larger strategy like 'destroy the tower' or 'kill the other team's off-lane player'.

So where you can execute a step of your strategy in a single move in chess (ex. taking an oppposing piece) doing the equivalent in DOTA (4 seconds walking up to enemy -> 6 seconds hitting them until dead) could take 600, every single one of which could be ever-so-slightly different each time but still valid for the purposes of calculating the game state's total permutation count.

So TL;DR numerically speaking chess is comparatively simple no matter which way you slice it, but if you ditch the idea of permutation math as per that chess.com quote there's an argument to be made for its strategic complexity where valid moves are defined by player intent instead of individual changes in game state.

You could even say that chess' numerical simplicity forms the core of its deep strategy layer, on account of being simple enough for a player to observe and analyse step-by-step instead of having to react to it as they would with a real time game.
 

Hulk_Smash

Member
Jan 8, 2014
491
406
585
Given that your response was comprised of a quote from chess.com and some laughing, I didn't catch that bit of context.


That statement is correct. However, even if you prune the permutation tree and remove all of the 'non-playable' moves like running in circles or standing still, the amount remaining in chess is still dwarfed by its equivalent in a real-time game.

Think of it like this- in chess, a move is composed of something like "Pawn from A2 to A3" and can take an indefinite amount of time since the game is turn-based. That's the smallest move you can make, but is immediately meaningful because you've moved 1/8th of the way across the playfield and made your opponent think about the new state of the board.

Contrast that to DOTA where one move is "Pudge from x240/y800 to x242/y796" and always takes 1/60th of a second. That takes you a measly 1/1000th (ish) of the way across the playfield and doesn't change the state of the game in a very meaningful way, but still counts as a 'valid' move if it's part of a larger strategy like 'destroy the tower' or 'kill the other team's off-lane player'.

So where you can execute a step of your strategy in a single move in chess (ex. taking an oppposing piece) doing the equivalent in DOTA (4 seconds walking up to enemy -> 6 seconds hitting them until dead) could take 600, every single one of which could be ever-so-slightly different each time but still valid for the purposes of calculating the game state's total permutation count.

So TL;DR numerically speaking chess is comparatively simple no matter which way you slice it, but if you ditch the idea of permutation math as per that chess.com quote there's an argument to be made for its strategic complexity where valid moves are defined by player intent instead of individual changes in game state.

You could even say that chess' numerical simplicity forms the core of its deep strategy layer, on account of being simple enough for a player to observe and analyse step-by-step instead of having to react to it as they would with a real time game.
The more I think about it, the more I would have to change my stance, my snide ass comments aside, but not because I think DOTA or the like is harder than chess,, but because it takes a different kind of intelligence than chess. While DoTA and other RTSs obviously require strategy, because of the real time element, they ALSO require fast reflexes. I'm always amazed DOTA players ability to move a mouse as fast as they do. They're awareness of all the hotkeys and menus is mesmerizing. But, that is a different skill set then a chess player, who doesn't have to worry about fast twitch skills or muscle memory.

Elite chess players, on the other hand, have to memorize not just the next few moves, but entire boards going 5-10 "boards" back. And the next 20 potential boards. I think it's why as a game, it has attracted high IQ people in the past. That kind of abstract memory is where high IQ people thrive. I suck at it in comparison. I find it exhausting to try to think of all the potential boards that could exist in a game of chess. DOTA players don't have to be as top level in this area because of the variable nature of real time. They have to be better at thinking on the fly. Chess players do not have to think on the fly.

Side note, I've only known one professional chess player in my life and this guy was genius level. Even though we were all the same age, he was already working on his doctorate while we were still at the master's level. My friends and I decided to test him on other strategy board games and without fail, he'd wipe the floor with us. My main game was Hero Clix and within 3 games of me teaching him, he was beating me. I took him to a tournament that weekend and he beat everyone there. There's just something about pro chess players that just puts them in another league of intelligence in my opinion.

TL;DR: Comparing chess to DOTA or any other real time strategies is comparing apples to oranges. Chess players require better abstract memory while DOTA players require better muscle memory. Try comparing chess to a turn-based strategy video games like X-COM and then don't be surprised if elite chess players could play competitively there as well.
 

Mister Apoc

Member
Aug 6, 2017
606
222
375
Given that your response was comprised of a quote from chess.com and some laughing, I didn't catch that bit of context.


That statement is correct. However, even if you prune the permutation tree and remove all of the 'non-playable' moves like running in circles or standing still, the amount remaining in chess is still dwarfed by its equivalent in a real-time game.

Think of it like this- in chess, a move is composed of something like "Pawn from A2 to A3" and can take an indefinite amount of time since the game is turn-based. That's the smallest move you can make, but is immediately meaningful because you've moved 1/8th of the way across the playfield and made your opponent think about the new state of the board.

Contrast that to DOTA where one move is "Pudge from x240/y800 to x242/y796" and always takes 1/60th of a second. That takes you a measly 1/1000th (ish) of the way across the playfield and doesn't change the state of the game in a very meaningful way, but still counts as a 'valid' move if it's part of a larger strategy like 'destroy the tower' or 'kill the other team's off-lane player'.

So where you can execute a step of your strategy in a single move in chess (ex. taking an oppposing piece) doing the equivalent in DOTA (4 seconds walking up to enemy -> 6 seconds hitting them until dead) could take 600, every single one of which could be ever-so-slightly different each time but still valid for the purposes of calculating the game state's total permutation count.

So TL;DR numerically speaking chess is comparatively simple no matter which way you slice it, but if you ditch the idea of permutation math as per that chess.com quote there's an argument to be made for its strategic complexity where valid moves are defined by player intent instead of individual changes in game state.

You could even say that chess' numerical simplicity forms the core of its deep strategy layer, on account of being simple enough for a player to observe and analyse step-by-step instead of having to react to it as they would with a real time game.
you simply have no understanding of chess

computers have only solved up to 7 piece endgame tablebases

anything more than 8 pieces at the moment is unsolvable
 
  • LOL
Reactions: Shifty.