TalkChess.com

Neat interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u77Ld9UZqYM
Around 10 minutes he talks about computers being stupid.

CRoberson wrote:Neat interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u77Ld9UZqYM
Around 10 minutes he talks about computers being stupid.

...bring it on...Carlsen vs SF-McBrain - 10 game match - will give Carlsen 10-1 odds, $10,000 if he wins , $1000 if SF-McBrain wins ... that's $10K out of my pocket - standing offer...

He also says back when Kasparov played Deep Blue it more of an even competition but today the computers are much too strong.

JohnW wrote:He also says back when Kasparov played Deep Blue it more of an even competition but today the computers are much too strong.

...that's a fair statement - and also my comment was said tongue in cheek , I do believe that Carlsen might be the strongest GM ever and I have the greatest respect for anyone that can play at that level...

Human thinks in categories, chess engines think in centipawn.
"Stupid" is also a category.
Human chess thinking is at most 8-10 depths, engines thinking may be 50-60 depths in endgames.
Chess power of human is very unstable, power of engines are steady until PC is plugged off.
The brain of computers (CPU + memory) is developed continuously but
the brain of humans barely altered in the last 10-20 thousand years.
Where is a fair competition here?

CRoberson wrote:Neat interview: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u77Ld9UZqYM
Around 10 minutes he talks about computers being stupid.

The discussion about computers starts around min 19, and I don't hear him using that term at any moment. He talks about computers getting better and, at the same time, more human-like, which kind of implies they haven't been that good all this time. But he does so in such vague terms, that entering in a debate about his take on computer chess, is pretty much impossible.

What specific part of the interview, made you come up with such a title for this thread?

Hi,
Hi shows respects for computers because they are far advanced than humans.
He admits that he prefers to play humans because playing against computers it's no sense, best computers are better at chess than him.
He says, laughing "it still feels like you are playing somebody stupid when you're playing the computer and losing to somebody you know does not understand the game as well as you that's an unpleasant feeling so that's why i prefer playing humans I might lose sometimes but at least I more or less understand why"
In my opinion is not speaking badly about computers. He feels a bit frustrated losing with a machine and not understanding the decisions that the machine makes.

He did not mention anything about odds matches against machines.

Jorge Garcia wrote:"it still feels like you are playing somebody stupid when you're playing the computer and losing to somebody you know does not understand the game as well as you that's an unpleasant feeling so that's why i prefer playing humans I might lose sometimes but at least I more or less understand why"

I watched the whole video, starting at the recommended min 10, and didn't hear that. Or did he mean to say that Carlsen talked about computers for ten minutes? That's a pretty strange statement, specially if he does so, over the course of many more minutes. Was he using a timer as he watched the video?

Regarding the quote, engines don't understand the game, so they feel stupid? He doesn't understand how he loses, so he feels displeased? It's simple, engines don't need to understand the game to play better, the same way calculators don't understand mathematics and yet they've been used to replace humans for calculation. Of course, he's not going to propose that engines should also replace humans for high level chess, he's quite invested in the opposite.

Ozymandias wrote:I watched the whole video, starting at the recommended min 10, and didn't hear that.

He starts talking about computers at the nine minute mark.