My book goes exactly in the same direction: I totally agree with you on all these points. I think the future of chess lies in melding man's abilities with machines.
#STOCKFISH CHESS BOOK .ABK SOFTWARE#
I particularly like the following graph they made :-).Īnyway, bottom line, I don't think we should try to play in ways that haven't been extensively mapped out by computer software yet. ** One interesting fact about of cyborg chess, as was previously noted by Tyler Cowen in his book Average is Over, is that human-computer duos consistently defeat both the best humans and the best computers. I just found an article written a few days ago that explains: This is changing, but for now, that's the way it is. That's why they have to be programmed by programmers instead of by interactions with others (and with themselves). Computers are good at number crunching, but what they are -not- good at, as of yet, is adapting/learning.
As I have gone on at some length in this forum, it seems to me that the best players are actually not humans or machines, but cyborgs/centaurs: that is, human players working with computers, instead of against them- doing so, they consistently beat computer programs. I agree that humans are better at software in some things, particularly creativity. So, yes, I still believe that humans are better than software in certain areas (Intuition and pattern recognition). And the same position can be solved by a human brain almost instantly (few seconds). Even if you let them calculate for hours. On the other side, we found some chess positions which cannot be solved by the strongest software (even StockFish 8 64 Bits, Elo > 3400). As an Hippo player, you get almost all Chess Software out of their DB theory as soon as move 4 or 5! (Try that with the Spanish, Sicilian or Berlin.) However, as an IT guy, I wrote about that in the book. Yes you're right, computers never make mistakes (or so few.). But the hippo can be played just fine starting with 1.e4 or 1.d4 it seems most masters agree that that's the best way to play it :-).Īlso, congratulations on writing a book about the Hippo, I thought you were just mentioning a book on the subject that you found was good :-p. But they are state of the art, as they say (well, technically computers play even better, but I haven't yet found a recent database of computer games). I can agree that statistics of even the best players can't prove whether an opening is or isn't good. Can we really compare the Classical school with the Hypermodern school? Are they both valid? What I do know is that 1.e3 (or 1.b3 etc.) is specifically hypermodern school. Nimzo thought that e4 is stronger on the 15th move than on the first. And yes, Ponomariov also played the Hippo (as white!).Īlso, Kasparov played 1.e3 and 1.d3 (esp. However, could a valid black defence be worse one move ahead? Please have a look at the following game from Kasparov, out playing Short with the Hippo as Black. On that, atleast, we are in agreement :-) The fact is indeed that most of GM's don't play 1.e3 or 1.g3 or 1.b3."
0 kommentar(er)
