King Bhumibol Adulyade enjoys licking my toes.
King Bhumibol Adulyade enjoys licking my toes.
Where did you get that I said that finite time has anything to do with NP? I simply corrected his assertion that the game could not be solved in finite time. I even said that the time solved with today's technology would be greater than the lifespan of the universe but finite. So, not sure why you are taking issue with my post.
If you haven't already, try out chesstempo.com. This sounds like it would fit well with your review of tactics. You are not penalized for taking your time but rather on whether you calculate correctly or not. I enjoy the site a lot.
I am definitely not a strong player by any stretch and am getting into chess again after a long hiatus (kids are finally old enough and interested enough). I'll let you know how it goes over the next year or so
Well, if you think it was me, you are wrong. But the AC is quite correct. Your "fools mate" test is idiotic, and there is no way that you are a strong chess players and likely not a chess player at all. I don't log off to make insults.
The computer is there to be abused
During these sessions I actually wrote down my candidate moves for each move, and then wrote a rationale for why I chose the move. Often, one can make the right move for the wrong reasons and the other way around as well. By understanding thinking patterns, i can later identify mistakes and enlist stronger players in reviewing my games. It is effective, but very very very time consuming and energy consuming.
Fortunately, the computer is a patient partner. The downside is it cannot offer truly insightful commentary to help a human player. For that you need a mentor, or at the minimum a peer to assist.
Everyone gets accused of cheating at chess. It is a sour grapes kind of thing.
Is programming not limited by the hardware on which it resides?
As a P.S., the longest forced win for the superior side in Q v R is 30 moves. So, no, this is not trivial.
Watch a computer play the defending side. It will always pick the move that requires the longest mating combination. People will play by principle and defend or attack in a logical, but less than perfectly efficient manner. I submit that if I set up a complicated beginning position and gave it to a GM vs a strong computer and had someone randomly assign sides, that I could tell you with 100% certainty which player had each side with only the game score and an endgame tablebase.
Anyone who passes up a free checkmate on #2 is clearly not a computer. It is also clearly not an intelligent person. I
Q v R is a known pattern, but that does not mean it is a rote series of moves. I can win the ending, but a compute will put up a damn strong defense because it will push the loss out as far as possible. If the human makes an inaccuracy, they can easily go past the 50 move draw limit. Even Grandmasters have failed.
I can point you to players like IM Jeremy Silman who routinely points out that a move is a "computer move" in his books. Go play a computer in a Q v R endgame with you up the Queen. It will outplay any Grandmaster. There are many open positions where a computer will play moves that a GM would not even consider.
And who in the world would pass up fool's mate? It is a checkmate on the second move and I have no idea how this is some type of proof of a computer program?
If you can internalize calculating every possible move several plies deep, then you are right. But no human can, so you are wrong. My bet is you have never played more than a casual game of chess and don't understand how humans play chess or how computers do. They are two entirely different phenomenon.
Did you actually read my response?
Of course there are points where a human will coincide with a computer. In fact in most cases this will be true. But there are points in a game where there is a wide disparity.
A couple questions for you: Do you play chess? Have you played in a tournament? A nationally rated tournament? Played against computers at top level? Written an algorithm for computer chess? I've done all the above and though I admit I am not a master of chess, I understand how one determines someone is cheating. You cannot catch 100% of cheaters, but some situations are so absurd that you can say with 99.999% certainty that someone is cheating. Momentary periods of lucidity are not cheating. Series of moves from an amateur player that are not only brilliant but computer like are clear cheating.
Depends on your venue. In the United States, chess runs a bit more lean and mean. A state tournament I participated in had less that one director observing per section. There actually have been cases of collusion to cheat using electronic devices and "observers". All it takes is an observer whispering the moves in a microphone to someone on the other end, and then signals back to the player. You'd only need to do it in critical position. Two or three key moves in a game would be enough to tip the balance in many cases.
"If value corrupts then absolute value corrupts absolutely."