3 ms·

> For many people, chess is not interesting, now that computers are so good at it. But why? I can understand that for a small number of people who has the ambi

> For many people, chess is not interesting, now that computers are so good at it. But why? I can understand that for a small number of people who has the ambition to become the best player, having an unbeatable figure looming over you is disheartening. Most players are never going to become even close to that, and they know it. The fact that AI has beaten the best of human players should be, theoretically, irrelevant to their interest in chess, other than having a novel teacher to learn from. They are playing against the same pool of players who are on the same level, with or without the the AI advancement. So I’m genuinely curious, does the chess community see a large number of discouraged average players?

nwienert 4y ago
Chess is actually the most popular it’s ever been right now.
jabl 4y ago
- Chess was in times past seen as the ultimate game of pure intellect, where the player with the most of that uniquely human trait, intelligence, wins the game. Except that no, turns out a tiny piece of silicon the size of your fingernail can beat the best player on the planet. So why spend time and effort on chess instead of some other game where humans still reign supreme (office politics? Cheating on your spouse?)? - And a variant of the above argument, humans are a tool-making species. We make tools to do specific things better than we can with our bare hands. So that we can use the tools to do the things that tools are better at, and then use our own hands/heads on things that humans are better at. So now that we have developed tools that are better at playing chess than a human, lets move on to another more challenging task. - And since this is HN, a variant of the above is Larry Walls characterization of the virtues of a programmer: impatience, laziness, and hubris. We "solved" chess, time to move on. Of course, all of the above justifications are, in a way, justifications against chess as some kind of noble pursuit that improves the condition of humanity. If you enjoy playing it as a way to spend your free time, go ahead, don't listen to all the negative sniping from the sidelines!
blackpill0w 4y ago
>Most players are never going to become even close to that, and they know it. The fact that AI has beaten the best of human players should be, theoretically, irrelevant to their interest in chess, other than having a novel teacher to learn from. That is exactly what's happening, players learn from engines and try to understand why they play this move and not that move, and as a result, there are a lot of competing players in top level chess, except that players started memorizing lines and the opening phase of the game became a bit dull and boring, however, this was only another obstacle for players, they simply needed to adapt and they did. Magnus Carlsen is well known for winning endgames that seem to be a dead draw, he keeps pushing and pressing until his opponents make a mistake and this is why he has been the world champion since 2013 (e.g. game 6 from the 2021 World Championship [0]). >So I’m genuinely curious, does the chess community see a large number of discouraged average players? No, the Queen's Gambit [1] made chess very popular, online chess is at its peak, it's pretty interesting to have world champions streaming and seeing them play variations that they wouldn't play in real life since they involve too much risk, or simply lead to losing positions, but they also make for exciting and amusing games. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmQs1KhB948 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmQs1KhB948 [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10048342 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10048342

nwienert 4y ago

Chess is actually the most popular it’s ever been right now.

jabl 4y ago

- Chess was in times past seen as the ultimate game of pure intellect, where the player with the most of that uniquely human trait, intelligence, wins the game. Except that no, turns out a tiny piece of silicon the size of your fingernail can beat the best player on the planet. So why spend time and effort on chess instead of some other game where humans still reign supreme (office politics? Cheating on your spouse?)? - And a variant of the above argument, humans are a tool-making species. We make tools to do specific things better than we can with our bare hands. So that we can use the tools to do the things that tools are better at, and then use our own hands/heads on things that humans are better at. So now that we have developed tools that are better at playing chess than a human, lets move on to another more challenging task. - And since this is HN, a variant of the above is Larry Walls characterization of the virtues of a programmer: impatience, laziness, and hubris. We "solved" chess, time to move on. Of course, all of the above justifications are, in a way, justifications against chess as some kind of noble pursuit that improves the condition of humanity. If you enjoy playing it as a way to spend your free time, go ahead, don't listen to all the negative sniping from the sidelines!

blackpill0w 4y ago

>Most players are never going to become even close to that, and they know it. The fact that AI has beaten the best of human players should be, theoretically, irrelevant to their interest in chess, other than having a novel teacher to learn from. That is exactly what's happening, players learn from engines and try to understand why they play this move and not that move, and as a result, there are a lot of competing players in top level chess, except that players started memorizing lines and the opening phase of the game became a bit dull and boring, however, this was only another obstacle for players, they simply needed to adapt and they did. Magnus Carlsen is well known for winning endgames that seem to be a dead draw, he keeps pushing and pressing until his opponents make a mistake and this is why he has been the world champion since 2013 (e.g. game 6 from the 2021 World Championship [0]). >So I’m genuinely curious, does the chess community see a large number of discouraged average players? No, the Queen's Gambit [1] made chess very popular, online chess is at its peak, it's pretty interesting to have world champions streaming and seeing them play variations that they wouldn't play in real life since they involve too much risk, or simply lead to losing positions, but they also make for exciting and amusing games. [0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmQs1KhB948 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PmQs1KhB948 [1]: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10048342 https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10048342