<Comment deleted by user>
Why do people still have footraces when cars are faster?
Because it's a pleasure... ;)
Literally the same thing happens with Antichess...
Because it is fun to play.
Because it is fun to play.
Because computers cannot calculate as effectively as humans in some positions. For example, a defense perimeter (pawn fortress), in which, while we humans know that it is a draw, computers will try to sacrifice pieces meaninglessly, sometimes even losing in the process. At least I haven't seen any chess engine which can calculate those positions. For example, in this position: lichess.org/analysis/rrrrkrrr/8/1p5p/pPp3pP/P1Pp1pP1/3PpP2/4P3/4K3_w_-_-_0_1, black is seven rooks up but the game is a draw. White should just shuffle his king around. Look at the engine's evaluation. It says that black is winning, which is clearly wrong if white doesn't capture anything but only keeps moving the king.
@Linspiring said in #2:
> Why do people still have footraces when cars are faster?
This is mostly a fair question... mostly, because in chess it's kinda like "memorise how the car goes brrr and you'll actually gain the ability to run faster than others if you all take these paths, or at the very least you'll save some much-needed energy in the long run."
To me, the problem isn't that the best computers can beat me; it's that my own engine-unassisted inventiveness is ineffective in the face of other people's engine-aided preparations. It's by no means my only problem in chess, but it is something that ultimately gives me little to no solace in my Luddite-like approach to chess.
> Why do people still have footraces when cars are faster?
This is mostly a fair question... mostly, because in chess it's kinda like "memorise how the car goes brrr and you'll actually gain the ability to run faster than others if you all take these paths, or at the very least you'll save some much-needed energy in the long run."
To me, the problem isn't that the best computers can beat me; it's that my own engine-unassisted inventiveness is ineffective in the face of other people's engine-aided preparations. It's by no means my only problem in chess, but it is something that ultimately gives me little to no solace in my Luddite-like approach to chess.
<Comment deleted by user>
@Shaikidow said in #6:
> my Luddite-like approach to chess.
You can't even use the "Learn from your mistakes" on the analysis board? Or "request analysis" to see the graph and see where you went wrong? In that case that would be a problem very specific to you. Are you the OP? But there are very few people that hate computers so much they can't use these basic tools.
Even then you could still analyze your own games and analyze master games and read books.
Your level is not so high that you need a computer. And in fact some GM's don't like using the computer at all.
> my Luddite-like approach to chess.
You can't even use the "Learn from your mistakes" on the analysis board? Or "request analysis" to see the graph and see where you went wrong? In that case that would be a problem very specific to you. Are you the OP? But there are very few people that hate computers so much they can't use these basic tools.
Even then you could still analyze your own games and analyze master games and read books.
Your level is not so high that you need a computer. And in fact some GM's don't like using the computer at all.
The computer is awesome in the opening and endgame like everything should be. The middle game is the true test of the human spirt and our digital companions.
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.