Computer Chess Club
https://talkchess.com/
My All time favorite Program is CM 6000 & CM 5000 did anyone every release the OPK (eng)v 2.61 from the chessmaster GUI so it could be played as a winboard engine?....Would love to have that one from CM 6000 for modern testing....used to test it manually back in the Old days against Junior 7 and Lokasoft (Chesspartner5) all done manually....quite a bit of work...
Does anybody doubt that Magnus Carlsen is the best chess human player in the world? Did he need to play many thousands of games to prove it? Was he forced to play generic openings like the ones from TCEC or CCRL/CEGT?Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Fri Jun 07, 2019 9:52 am Proof of best never comes from a championship. It takes many thousands of games to know which engine is strongest when they are close in strength. And by the time we know the answer, there is a new version anyway. A contest like tcec gives us a champion. And contests like ccrl and cegt tell us what's stronger on hardware mere mortals can afford. Both systems have great value.
What's the difference? Really, I keep saying "Magnus Carlsen", "Magnus Carlsen" like a parrot, but it hasn't been proven to any degree that he's the strongest chess human on earth, yet "people being convinced" that he is is enough in the chess world.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:29 pm And finally, there is a huge difference between "I am convinced." And , "It has been proven."
Magnus Carlsen might be the strongest player in the world.Ovyron wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:56 pmWhat's the difference? Really, I keep saying "Magnus Carlsen", "Magnus Carlsen" like a parrot, but it hasn't been proven to any degree that he's the strongest chess human on earth, yet "people being convinced" that he is is enough in the chess world.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:29 pm And finally, there is a huge difference between "I am convinced." And , "It has been proven."
Unless you can name someone else that is stronger than him (and human), what he has done should suffice, and people could do the same with chess engines to get convinced that Leela or Stockfish is the strongest chess entity. And with a very small fraction of the resources that is being used by TCEC, the CCRL and the CEGT for these purposes.
What's this obsession with "proving" something and why are only computer chess enthusiasts affected and common chess enthusiasts not? (I've never heard someone say it hasn't been "proven" that Magnus is the best human chess player.) Is it because people can play hundreds of thousands of games with chess machines but they can't do it with humans? If so, being unable to do it with humans seems like an advantage, as we can find who is best with much less time and effort (even though we can't "prove" it.)
Although Not a fan Of Him or his philosophy or Playing style Magnus Carlsen without a doubt the Best Player in the world today..Caruana is approaching but not quite there yet as the WC Match showed (Match critical moments & tiebreaks)Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:46 amMagnus Carlsen might be the strongest player in the world.Ovyron wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 10:56 pmWhat's the difference? Really, I keep saying "Magnus Carlsen", "Magnus Carlsen" like a parrot, but it hasn't been proven to any degree that he's the strongest chess human on earth, yet "people being convinced" that he is is enough in the chess world.Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Wed Jun 12, 2019 6:29 pm And finally, there is a huge difference between "I am convinced." And , "It has been proven."
Unless you can name someone else that is stronger than him (and human), what he has done should suffice, and people could do the same with chess engines to get convinced that Leela or Stockfish is the strongest chess entity. And with a very small fraction of the resources that is being used by TCEC, the CCRL and the CEGT for these purposes.
What's this obsession with "proving" something and why are only computer chess enthusiasts affected and common chess enthusiasts not? (I've never heard someone say it hasn't been "proven" that Magnus is the best human chess player.) Is it because people can play hundreds of thousands of games with chess machines but they can't do it with humans? If so, being unable to do it with humans seems like an advantage, as we can find who is best with much less time and effort (even though we can't "prove" it.)
Magnus Carlsen is the strongest player in the world.
This is the difference between being convinced and being proven.
If you have 20 people in a room, 50 times out of one hundred two people will have the same birthday.
If you have 70 randomly chosen people in a room, 999 times out of one thousand two of them will have the same birthday.
In both cases, we "probably" have a match. In neither case is it decided unless we actually test the conditions for a given instance.
So what is your acceptable level of proof? Is a coin toss good enough? It might be right. It might be wrong.
If you examine a collection of trials mathematically, you can say what the certainty is that something you imagine is correct is really true.
Is it unlikely? Is it fairly likely? Is it extremely likely? Is it nearly certain? Is it certain?
Some people are easily convinced. Some people are hard to convince. Is there a different truth for these categories of people?
Now, let's suppose further that we have enough games to show that within two full standard deviations Carlsen is better than Caruana. Does that mean that if they meet head to head in a ten game match it is certain that Carlsen is going to win?
Consider this list of Fide Champions:
Anatoly Karpov (1993-1999)
Alexander Khalifman (1999-2000)
Viswanathan Anand (2000-2002)
Ruslan Ponomariov (2002-2004)
Rustam Kasimdzhanov (2004-2005)
Veselin Topalov (2005-2006)
How many of those were the best players in the world at the time they were champions?
That is an important illustration between what a champion is and who the best player is.
They are most certainly not the same thing.
Since the world champion of chess is not certainly the strongest player in the world, we should also conclude the same things about short contests involving engines that we conclude about short contests involving people.
TCEC does not name the strongest chess engine in the world. TCEC names a champion.
Are you saying we never knew who was the best player in the world in any time period because it was never proven scientifically?Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:46 am How many of those were the best players in the world at the time they were champions?
That is an important illustration between what a champion is and who the best player is.
No.Ovyron wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:23 amAre you saying we never knew who was the best player in the world in any time period because it was never proven scientifically?Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Thu Jun 13, 2019 12:46 am How many of those were the best players in the world at the time they were champions?
That is an important illustration between what a champion is and who the best player is.
I have never said one hundred thousand games are necessary. If there is decent separation in the real strength a couple thousand games is plenty.I think it was clear who was the best in several time periods (even if, as you said, it didn't coincide with who was champion), and we didn't need hundreds of thousands of games to know.
The number of games played in carefully controlled circumstances is like having more and more tiny, accurate marks on the ruler.
You can only say "Y was chess champion, but X was best player", if you know X was best player, and you know that without all the requirements to know what chess engine is best.
So, are you saying that the only times we were able to know who was the best human player were those where the separation between them and second best was big enough that the games that they played in that time period were enough to know they were best?Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Tue Jun 18, 2019 1:47 amI have never said one hundred thousand games are necessary. If there is decent separation in the real strength a couple thousand games is plenty.I think it was clear who was the best in several time periods (even if, as you said, it didn't coincide with who was champion), and we didn't need hundreds of thousands of games to know.