6 ms·

Hot take, but chess is a zombie sport. Software running in a smartphone can play deep games against each other. Chess engines aren't like car engines are to s

Hot take, but chess is a zombie sport. Software running in a smartphone can play deep games against each other. Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. They are more akin to text-to-image AIs but as though every single picture they produce is better than what any artist ever could produce. Part of that is because Chess is easily defined (the win conditions are comparatively simple). I'm rambling now and I think that's enough wall of text for a hot take.

andrepd 4y ago
Chess engines have outclassed humans for about 15 years now. Yet chess is more popular than ever. Why would chess engines playing very well mean human chess stops being interesting? I don't see the relation.
- HideousKojima 4y ago
  In a similar vein, Tool Assisted Speedruns for video games can always outperform human players, but TAS streams and youtube videos don't get nearly as many viewers as real humans running. And human speedrunners caught cheating and using tools etc. have drastic hits to their popularity after they're exposed.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    A human making a TAS isn't playing the same game. They're playing a version with slow motion, rewind, memory inspection, etc. And a computer performing a TAS isn't playing the game at all. So many cheating scandals boil down to splicing, which is again not playing the same game. Tools that don't hack the game are very often allowed and openly used.
  - tialaramex 4y ago
    I'm actually on the whole more interested in a TAS. I would often watch a big fraction of the TAS block at a GDQ, and only RTA for niche cases where I especially care about that game. However, TAS is very unlikely Computer Chess because the TAS is actually a composite of a vast number of individual human player inputs - assembled by in effecting rewinding and continuing the game over and over. The TAS is not a machine beating the game, but the effect if humans played the game as well as they know how. That's why they have "sync" problems during a GDQ, the playback device has no idea how to play, it's just robotically carrying out actions.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
lairv 4y ago
> Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. I think this is questionable. While we can understand the physical limitations of a human compared to an engine, we tend to alleviate the intellectual limitations. Just like an engine can deliver far more power than a human could ever do regardless of their training, a computer performs far more chess move computations than a human ever could, regardless of their training. It's just that our brain is biased toward alleviating computational cost, because we implicitly think "in the end, a human could as well play the same moves as a computer" I do agree however on the premise that chess is a zombie sport, but I think it has more to do with the ease of cheating. If you consider cycling for example, there has also been cases of cheating with an electric engine inside the bike, and new cheating methods are likely to be developed faster detection procedures. And in this case "Bike engines are like car engines are to sprinting"
derac 4y ago
And yet the audience for chess engine tournaments is basically 0, while millions(?) watch human tournaments.
- asvitkine 4y ago
  This has 100k views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nmCHW73-ec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nmCHW73-ec
- mccorrinall 4y ago
  Didn’t we just learn that Hans Niemann is apparently just a front-end for a chess engine? ;)
  - icemelt8 4y ago
    what if Hans is not human, but an advance AI cyborg? maybe he's not communicating with a chess engine, he IS the chess engine. Maybe his name is an anagram for the word Enigma or something.
- epolanski 4y ago
  I like commented games between engines, this has more than a million views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wui0YweevtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wui0YweevtY
xboxnolifes 4y ago
Machines can throw objects faster, further, and more accurate than humans, but field sports are still popular. It's interesting not because the object goes far, but because it's being done by a human.
- philwelch 4y ago
  There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though.
  - MichaelCollins 4y ago
    I don't know, Voight-Kampff tests don't seem reliable.
  - viridian 4y ago
    From what I've read on this exact topic w.r.t. robotics, there are a few select places you could probably replace humans with a robot using current technology, and achieve almost perfect results. Kickers in American football, free throws in basketball are two such examples.
    - lupire 4y ago
      You could just put a robot on a basketball team, take a pass from the tip off, and shoot a 3-pter. Like Air Bud
      - viridian 4y ago
        Ain't no rule says a robot can't play basketball.
    - goatlover 4y ago
      Kickers have to sometimes tackle, run fakes, kick onsides, deal with mishandled snaps or holds, and adjust for the conditions, like wind or how the opponent is trying to bother the kick. Plus the kick is from different parts of the field, unlike a free throw. But it doesn't matter, since someone taking a free throw has to be already in the game playing. There's no designated FT shooter.
asimpletune 4y ago
Yeah I know what you mean but human chess is much more exciting because you can see themes appear in a player's strategy. You can sort of follow what they're thinking. Computer chess is next level precisely because the computer has decided that is the best move, but it's not part of some kind of narrative, it's just based on the engine's analysis.
- rowanG077 4y ago
  Isn't that way more beautiful? Pure brilliance and perfection. There is no emotion in the machine making dumb mistakes. There is no fear in the machine questioning his move. Is there some kind of video of a GM analyzing an engines moves step by step? Can they even understand every move without seeing the whole picture?
  - asimpletune 4y ago
    Yeah, in a way it's more beautiful I think, but only in some abstract sense because it's still above everyone's heads. What's missing to make it interesting to watch is that narrative I was talking about, and that's a distinctly human feature of gameplay. I don't know if there's a video of GM's analyzing engine's moves, mostly because I think that's literally what the engine is for. And I don't think they can understand every move, which just goes to show how strong engines are. It's like alien tech strong.
Loocid 4y ago
>Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. Why? That seems like a completely arbitrary line to draw.
whateveracct 4y ago
Seriously - go play a fighting game. In fighting games, most AIs are discredited and stupid because they have no reaction time. I don't know of any that name in a nondeterministic 10-15f of reaction time. It really complicated things.
- short_sells_poo 4y ago
  That's fairly counterintuitive to me. The easiest avenue for an AI to gain advantage over a human is reaction time and accuracy. E.g. an AI that reacts in microseconds will never be beaten on pure reaction by a human given that there's a floor of some 50-100msec for a human to be physically able to react to stimulus. E.g. I remember early 3rd party Starcraft AIs would beat humans just by micromanaging certain nimble flying units.
  - whateveracct 4y ago
    I typo'd a bit so maybe it didn't get across. I meant an AI with human reaction time.

andrepd 4y ago

Chess engines have outclassed humans for about 15 years now. Yet chess is more popular than ever. Why would chess engines playing very well mean human chess stops being interesting? I don't see the relation.

HideousKojima 4y ago
In a similar vein, Tool Assisted Speedruns for video games can always outperform human players, but TAS streams and youtube videos don't get nearly as many viewers as real humans running. And human speedrunners caught cheating and using tools etc. have drastic hits to their popularity after they're exposed.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  A human making a TAS isn't playing the same game. They're playing a version with slow motion, rewind, memory inspection, etc. And a computer performing a TAS isn't playing the game at all. So many cheating scandals boil down to splicing, which is again not playing the same game. Tools that don't hack the game are very often allowed and openly used.
- tialaramex 4y ago
  I'm actually on the whole more interested in a TAS. I would often watch a big fraction of the TAS block at a GDQ, and only RTA for niche cases where I especially care about that game. However, TAS is very unlikely Computer Chess because the TAS is actually a composite of a vast number of individual human player inputs - assembled by in effecting rewinding and continuing the game over and over. The TAS is not a machine beating the game, but the effect if humans played the game as well as they know how. That's why they have "sync" problems during a GDQ, the playback device has no idea how to play, it's just robotically carrying out actions.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

lairv 4y ago

> Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. I think this is questionable. While we can understand the physical limitations of a human compared to an engine, we tend to alleviate the intellectual limitations. Just like an engine can deliver far more power than a human could ever do regardless of their training, a computer performs far more chess move computations than a human ever could, regardless of their training. It's just that our brain is biased toward alleviating computational cost, because we implicitly think "in the end, a human could as well play the same moves as a computer" I do agree however on the premise that chess is a zombie sport, but I think it has more to do with the ease of cheating. If you consider cycling for example, there has also been cases of cheating with an electric engine inside the bike, and new cheating methods are likely to be developed faster detection procedures. And in this case "Bike engines are like car engines are to sprinting"

derac 4y ago

And yet the audience for chess engine tournaments is basically 0, while millions(?) watch human tournaments.

asvitkine 4y ago
This has 100k views: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nmCHW73-ec https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nmCHW73-ec
mccorrinall 4y ago
Didn’t we just learn that Hans Niemann is apparently just a front-end for a chess engine? ;)
- icemelt8 4y ago
  what if Hans is not human, but an advance AI cyborg? maybe he's not communicating with a chess engine, he IS the chess engine. Maybe his name is an anagram for the word Enigma or something.
epolanski 4y ago
I like commented games between engines, this has more than a million views https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wui0YweevtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wui0YweevtY

xboxnolifes 4y ago

Machines can throw objects faster, further, and more accurate than humans, but field sports are still popular. It's interesting not because the object goes far, but because it's being done by a human.

philwelch 4y ago
There isn't yet a humanoid robot that can autonomously play those sports, though.
- MichaelCollins 4y ago
  I don't know, Voight-Kampff tests don't seem reliable.
- viridian 4y ago
  From what I've read on this exact topic w.r.t. robotics, there are a few select places you could probably replace humans with a robot using current technology, and achieve almost perfect results. Kickers in American football, free throws in basketball are two such examples.
  - lupire 4y ago
    You could just put a robot on a basketball team, take a pass from the tip off, and shoot a 3-pter. Like Air Bud
    - viridian 4y ago
      Ain't no rule says a robot can't play basketball.
  - goatlover 4y ago
    Kickers have to sometimes tackle, run fakes, kick onsides, deal with mishandled snaps or holds, and adjust for the conditions, like wind or how the opponent is trying to bother the kick. Plus the kick is from different parts of the field, unlike a free throw. But it doesn't matter, since someone taking a free throw has to be already in the game playing. There's no designated FT shooter.

asimpletune 4y ago

Yeah I know what you mean but human chess is much more exciting because you can see themes appear in a player's strategy. You can sort of follow what they're thinking. Computer chess is next level precisely because the computer has decided that is the best move, but it's not part of some kind of narrative, it's just based on the engine's analysis.

rowanG077 4y ago
Isn't that way more beautiful? Pure brilliance and perfection. There is no emotion in the machine making dumb mistakes. There is no fear in the machine questioning his move. Is there some kind of video of a GM analyzing an engines moves step by step? Can they even understand every move without seeing the whole picture?
- asimpletune 4y ago
  Yeah, in a way it's more beautiful I think, but only in some abstract sense because it's still above everyone's heads. What's missing to make it interesting to watch is that narrative I was talking about, and that's a distinctly human feature of gameplay. I don't know if there's a video of GM's analyzing engine's moves, mostly because I think that's literally what the engine is for. And I don't think they can understand every move, which just goes to show how strong engines are. It's like alien tech strong.

Loocid 4y ago

>Chess engines aren't like car engines are to sprinting. Why? That seems like a completely arbitrary line to draw.

whateveracct 4y ago

Seriously - go play a fighting game. In fighting games, most AIs are discredited and stupid because they have no reaction time. I don't know of any that name in a nondeterministic 10-15f of reaction time. It really complicated things.

short_sells_poo 4y ago
That's fairly counterintuitive to me. The easiest avenue for an AI to gain advantage over a human is reaction time and accuracy. E.g. an AI that reacts in microseconds will never be beaten on pure reaction by a human given that there's a floor of some 50-100msec for a human to be physically able to react to stimulus. E.g. I remember early 3rd party Starcraft AIs would beat humans just by micromanaging certain nimble flying units.
- whateveracct 4y ago
  I typo'd a bit so maybe it didn't get across. I meant an AI with human reaction time.