While I agree that AI wont replace you, the analogy is BS. Magnus Carlsen is not replaced by a chess engine because he is not paid solely because of his raw skills. As any professional player of any massive sport, he is an entertainer first. He gets paid only because people want to watch him play.
Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
41–50 of 65 posts
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#42One thing that might not be apparent to non-chess players is that an experienced human (particularly a GM or Super-GM) with an engine can often beat the same engine or another engine that lacks human assistance. There are some positions, particularly in closed games where this can become more of a factor. It'll be interesting to see if a similar logic plays out in other fields. I imagine that some companies may be qu…
This is advanced/cyborg chess in a nutshell (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess)
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#43Even though cars are faster, there are still human runners.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#44One thing that might not be apparent to non-chess players is that an experienced human (particularly a GM or Super-GM) with an engine can often beat the same engine or another engine that lacks human assistance. There are some positions, particularly in closed games where this can become more of a factor. It'll be interesting to see if a similar logic plays out in other fields. I imagine that some companies may be qu…
Centaur Chess (the term for this) used to be better but outside of some positions that I don't think have ever occurred in an actual game, no human can help out a modern chess engine.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#45This is a poor analogy. Magnus Carlsen stays because chess consumers decide to pay for humans even though they are inferior to Stockfish. BigCorp will always pick machine over you if they can.
> even though they are inferior to Stockfish They're not.
Magnus's peak rating was 2882.
Stockfish is currently rated 3644.
Lc0/AlphaZero was estimated to be rated 3800.
Stockfish would destroy Magnus even with queen odds.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#46Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even though they are inferior to Stockfish They're not.
Magnus's peak rating was 2882. Stockfish is currently rated 3644. Lc0/AlphaZero was estimated to be rated 3800. Stockfish would destroy Magnus even with queen odds.
Who would you rather play: Magnus or Stockfish?
And what made him inferior again?
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#47We're not all Magnus Carlsen. Some of us are hacks or very ordinary 'players', and can be replace without a ripple on the pond.
everyone is the Magnus Carlsen of their own life, though. and humans are irreplaceable. sure, budget decisions are made that cause people to have to go find another employer. but there is no civilization without people in it.
It's irrelevant who you are to yourself if you're nothing but a row in a database to the people looking for the earliest opportunity to replace you with a cheaper option. Those people are not acting in the best interests of long-term civilization.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#48Magnus Carlsen is a performer . If people wanted to see "perfect" chess they would be watching chess engine championships. These feature some of the deepest and most thought out moves ever performed in chess. They also get a few hundred live viewers. Magnus is objectively an inferior player to top chess engines. If there was a technological problem that requires the best chess abilities, nobody would be paying Magnus…
> Magnus Carlsen is a performer. Not everything that draws a crowd is a performance. I suspect Magnus Carlsen would play chess even if nobody watched. Just look at Mikhail Tal, Max Euwe, Garry Kasparov and all those others. None of them did it because of the crowds. They did it because the game itself fascinated them.
> I suspect Magnus Carlsen would play chess even if nobody watched.
Maybe, but it wouldn't be his job then.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#49Earlier quoted context omitted.
> even though they are inferior to Stockfish They're not.
Magnus's peak rating was 2882. Stockfish is currently rated 3644. Lc0/AlphaZero was estimated to be rated 3800. Stockfish would destroy Magnus even with queen odds.
Computer ratings are kind of random because there's no meaningful sample of them playing top players. They're obviously much stronger, but specific numbers are kind of meaningless beyond comparing them to other software which they have competed against.
But Stockfish is not going to beat Magnus with queen odds. Nakamura has beaten Lc0 with knight odds in blitz (though he got crushed overall), and queen odds in bullet, all while chatting on stream. And fast time controls favor computers simply because they're practically impossible to flag and will almost never miss a tactical idea.
Re: Chess engines didn't replace Magnus Carlsen, and AI won't replace you
#50One thing that might not be apparent to non-chess players is that an experienced human (particularly a GM or Super-GM) with an engine can often beat the same engine or another engine that lacks human assistance. There are some positions, particularly in closed games where this can become more of a factor. It'll be interesting to see if a similar logic plays out in other fields. I imagine that some companies may be qu…
I think this was true before AlphaZero; now, I'm not sure there's any benefit to having a human + engine versus just an engine alone.
From my understanding the AlphaZero based engines (i.e. neural nets) do not really benefit from having a human in the loop.