451–460 of 484 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your apparent personal dislike of Magnus Carlsen (based on this and other comments) does not make your baseless assertions any more convincing.
What I am saying is true. I am not interested in convincing a delusional person.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What I am saying is true. I am not interested in convincing a delusional person.
Your complete lack of supporting evidence makes for a most compelling argument.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It’s still annoying if the starting position is one that only one of the players is deeply familiar with. Too much luck factor. They should go the shogi route and get rid of draws if they want to improve chess so much.
I’ve thought about this quite a bit. I don’t think this possible. Draws happen when two players are very closely matched that the difference in their play is not large enough to lead to a definite outcome. Currently in chess, 2800 like Magnus would draw say 70% of the time against a 2600 and win the rest (making up numbers here). The only way to solve this problem, is if the game magnifies differences in capability a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I can't refrain from asking: and what's the style of LLMs? For example the ChatGPT which is apparently rated around 1800? That should be completely different from that of a classic chess engine.
ChatGPT will hallucinate and make impossible/invalid moves frequently, so I don't see how it could have a chess rating
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What a strange reply. You're getting downvoted because winning the WCC 10 times in a row means by any reasonable definition that Magnus has indeed "effectively mastered classical chess". If for argument's sake we entertain the point you were making, there'd still be no motivation for Magnus to continue in the WCC because it'd still be against humans and not engines.
Commenting about voting is considered poor form in the rules here, so if you could refrain from spouting your opinions as if they were verified facts, that'd be lovely, cheers. Carlsen won the WCC 5 times. Where you get 10 from, I don't know. Perhaps your opinion on these matters is just another ill-informed hot take, but we'll never know for sure. No, that is a totally nonsensical definition for anyone who's serious…
5 times, yes. 10 from is the fact that he held the title of "undisputed world champion" for a decade.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Then I can't refrain from asking: and what's the style of LLMs? For example the ChatGPT which is apparently rated around 1800? That should be completely different from that of a classic chess engine.
LLMs can be trained on chess games, but the tree of possible board states branches so fast that for any given position there is simply very little training data available. Even the billions of games played on chess.com and lichess are only a drop in the bucket compared to how many possible board states there are. This would have to be split further by rating range, so the amount of games for any given rating range wo…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> That isn't how most appreciate sports. People are hoping for the contenders to be at the top of their game towards the end of the championships. I'm not sure how "hope" plays into it but few of the sports I follow allow for contenders to be at the top of their game towards the end of the championship. People are tired or playing injured, and it never occurred to me to believe that this made their performances less…
You must not follow the NBA or MLB then. One of the major narratives of the most recent NBA postseason was how unfortunate it was that the Eastern Conference was so plagued with injuries that it limited the quality of competition, and it frequently has been a major narrative. Off the top of my head the recent Milwaukee Bucks championship was noted as happening in a context where their strongest competitor, the Brookl…
On the contrary, the NBA was one of the sports I had in mind when I made my comment. (frankly I'm not clear which part of that comment you found factually incorrect, such that you would write something like this)
> One of the major narratives of the most recent NBA postseason was how unfortunate it was that the Eastern Conference was so plagued with injuries that it limited the quality of competition, and it frequently has been a major narrative.
I am sure that is a thing a human, or sports journalist, might believe, so, point taken. One certainly could view the "quality of competition" as being "compromised" if the athletes and teams are not functioning tip-top at the end of the season. A person could enjoy watching the competition less as a result. I think my original comment makes it clear that I don't view things that way. I find the fact that someone else might view the matter differently as being... not especially noteworthy?
> Meanwhile in baseball injuries are so pervasive it's almost a question of which team doesn't suffer injuries.
What part of few of the sports I follow allow for contenders to be at the top of their game towards the end of the championship. People are tired or playing injured made you believe I needed to be reminded that people get injured playing baseball? Not upset, just baffled.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Absolutely. Nepo and Magnus seem to be cut from a different cloth, although Magnus has never had a moment where he could demonstrate whether or not he can be humble, because he has always just crushed. Anish Giri kind of took a shot at Magnus (with respect to his retiring from classical chess) in his early commentary with Petr Leko a few days ago. People are funny, and one doesn't usually get to be where Ding and Guk…
Magnus described Ding's abilities as a 4/10 in the lead up to the match. In match commentary he regularly called the games "baffling" (as in baffingly bad) and regularly said they weren't strong grandmaster calibre. He is definitely very conceited and resents not being the world champion, even if it's only because of his absence.
EDIT: Just to preempt: This is not say that Gukesh doesn't have a very bright future or couldn't surpass Magnus' top rating. Gukesh could definitely do that... but currently neither Gukesh or Ding are even particularly close to Magnus' (current!) level.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There are several neural network based engines these days, including one that does exclusively what you describe (i.e. "patterns only", no calculation at all), and one that's trained on human games. Even Stockfish uses a neural network these days by default for its positional evaluation, but it's relatively simple/lightweight in comparison to these, and it gains its strength from being used as part of deep search, ra…
Definitely. And Google's AlphaZero did it years ago. I don't think the patterns are very human, but they are very cool.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> It's 100% possible to become a master starting as an adult Do you have any examples of someone who has done it?
We might bicker on the meaning of "starting", but Mikhail Chigorin is definitely the most famous example. He was taught the moves at age 16 by a school teacher but in no way pursued the game until well into his twenties. He would then go on to compete at the highest level, including for the world championship. While he's the most famous example, many famous older masters also started quite late. And I think one big d…
What have you focused on in your chess learning to get to where you've gotten? I presume - everything?