/sci/ - Science & Math

>>>/asp/

Chess is neither science nor math. /sci/ is "science & math" and not "pseudo-intellectual random".

>>5725598
>chess is neither science
>nor math

>>5725602
woah look at that math
>fuck off

>>5725598
How exactly is chess not math?

>>>/tg/

>>5725602
Retarded scribblings are not math.

>>5725620
>>5725622
Lol, plebs don't even know about graph theory. Do you even know who Euler was or what he accomplished? Why are you even on a science board?

There may be math in chess, just like there's math everywhere. But chess is not math, nor science. Chess is a fucking game, now fuck off to >>>/tg/
>Chess is not a sport either

>>5725619
Fuck off and take a math course, kid.

>>5725630
Do you even know how to pronounce Euler?

>>5725637
"You-ler."

>>5725630
Bitch please. I know more about graph theory than you and chess is still not math. If you think such trivialities count as graph theory, you are probably a CS major. Please fuck off and take a real math class.

>>5725647
>but I am a CS major
What's your problem, anyway? Why shouldn't we have a decent thread about chess on /sci/?

>in b4 anon throws another tantrum
Grow up and learn to appreciate the fact that other people like what you may not.

And yes, chess is as much science as anything you can think of. And people who brag about their knowledge are usually the ones that have the least of it.

>>5725663
Chess is a boring hobby for plebeians who have too much time. Take your anti-intellectual non-science off-topic garbage where it belongs. >>>/asp/ >>>/tg/ >>>/b/ >>>/r9k/ >>>/s4s/

>>5725663
>CS major
>claiming intellectual superiority
top lel

Refer to >>5725628

>>5725642
Enjoy your ban.

>>5725668
So if I decided to program a chess engine, this would not be considered science in your little pathetic world?

>>5725701
Trivial code monkey work is not science.

>>5725706
Oh so you're an expert? Glad to hear. Know any good mid-game heuristics?

>>5725668
>Chess is a boring hobby for plebeians who have too much time.
>Take your anti-intellectual non-science off-topic garbage where it belongs.
My my aren't we feeling important today.

>>5725675
Where exactly am I claiming intellectual superiority?

I don´t get the butthurt in this thread.
Chess is not science, but making programms that play good chess is a kind of creative thought process.
I think we should be able to have a civilised discussion of this matter on this board.

"Deep Blue had an impact on computing in many different industries. It was programmed to solve the complex, strategic game of chess, so it enabled researchers to explore and understand the limits of massively parallel processing. This research gave developers insight into ways they could design a computer to tackle complex problems in other fields, using deep knowledge to analyze a higher number of possible solutions. The architecture used in Deep Blue was applied to financial modeling, including marketplace trends and risk analysis; data mining—uncovering hidden relationships and patterns in large databases; and molecular dynamics, a valuable tool for helping to discover and develop new drugs."

source: http://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/ibm100/us/en/icons/deepblue/

>>5725788
Unrelated, a human and a computer can beat even the best chess machine or chess master

>>5725809
have you even read my quote?
Letting Computers solve problems is a part of science, whether you admit it or not.
And coding the programs is important as well.

>>5725788
She's a well known troll on /sci/. Pay no attention.

>>5725809
forget URL
http://www.palantir.com/2010/03/friction-in-human-computer-symbiosis-kasparov-on-chess

>>5725668
>showing this much disrespect to a 5000 year old game
Please grow up.

I've been trying to get back into playing chess. Shit's fun yo.

I suck balls at it though.

>>5725831
who do you mean? EK?

( >>5725788 here)

>>5725836
> 5000 year old game

>>5725851
No, I believe this one is younger, more naive and much more angry at the world.

I think she's the same troll that shits up every thread where someone mentions the word "consciousness".

>>5725852
Oops, it's 1500.

>>5725889
and which post do you mean?

>>5725831
>>5725851
i wasnt even in this thread until now!
wtf u dissing me 4??

>>5725836
>it's old, therefore it deserves respect even though it's off-topic
Argumentum ad antiquitatem is a fallacy.

>>5725831
I'm not a "troll". Stop abusing this word as an ad hominem for opinions disagreeing with you.

>>5725889
who the fuck is that?
u dont mean haz, do ya?

>>5725902
Yes, you are. Go back to your troll cave.

Oh and one more thing, every time you sage this thread I'll bump it. Let's see who lasts longer.

Pic related. It's Kasparov, laughing.

>>5725898
>>5725904
Do you like chess EK? Serious question.

>>5725892
>1500
Nigga, learn fucking history. The game is 730 years old.

>>5725904
No, he doesn't. Now stop bumping this retarded off-topic thread.

>>5725908
You're wasting your time. How about you do something productive instead of shitposting?

>>5725913
yeh i quite like it. i used to be pretty good too (im out of practise at the moment, unfortunately)
u play?
do you have one of them..rating number thingies?

>>5725914
>How about you do something productive instead of shitposting?
How about you take your own advice?

>>5725914
I think a productive discussion about chess is better than most of the stuff you will find on the first page.

>>5725919
Then you're pretty cool in my book.

I play semi-regularly, have an ELO of about 1300 (not really sure since I don't play competitive). Currently I'm trying to improve by studying lots of GM games.

>>5725931
oh? im 'pretty cool' because i have a vague interest in chess?
well, thanks i guess.
altho your interpretation of being 'cool' is certainly a lot different from any1 else i ever met.

>>5725931
also, i dont really see how that'd help any more than just studying organic games.
how do they genetically modify a game of chess, anyway?

>>5725919
>i used to be pretty good too
top lel
I remember winning against you a year ago on that online chess site. You're a pleb.

>>5725923
No.

>>5725939
You said you used to be pretty good. So I guess you did play a lot of chess and don't just have a vague interest in it. In short, I complimented your efforts.

>>5725945
>organic games
I'm not sure if you're being serious or romantic, EK. <3

>>5725944
>actually plays chess
>sages thread regardless
How do humans even work.

>>5725947
>You said you used to be pretty good
yeh, but im also arrogant as fuck. im probably about average compared to most of /sci/
/sci/ is actually pretty good, on the whole. i spose that aint really surprising tho, sci/math types usually are good at stuff like that.

i will get back in practise at some point, i kinda miss it.

>>5725951
shush, hun. you got the joke

So I want to get good at chess. where do I start? Just play against the computer a lot?

>>5725947
EK is the kind of player who doesn't even realize when you threaten to capture one of her rooks in the next move.

>>5725961
>im probably about average compared to most of /sci/
Nothing to be proud of, considering that most of /sci/ are retards.

>>5725970
You start by reading books on strategy and tactics. And by not supporting off-topic threads on /sci/.

>>5725970
No that's just a good way to lose all motivation for chess. Use the computer to analyse difficult position or to play a game just to see weaknesses in your own play. But generally the way to improve is to actively study, meaning:
- play a lot
- study your own games
- study grandmaster games
- study openings, endgames
- study tactics (short-term) and strategy (long-term)
- improve your ability to calculate moves in advance
- improve your positional play
- learn to read and analyse a chess position

>>5725972
erm, did u even play me?
also, my ability at chess varies a lot depending on my current state of mind, or if im drunk/high etc.
i could probably take you on right now tho

(infinite time, random colour) http://lichess.org/pf8jyjrt

>>5725978
>helps anon get better in chess
>sages anyway

>>5725977
>mfw I have been playing against the computer a lot and just getting totally ass raped and lose motivation

>mfw I'm OP and no one has answered my question yet

>>5725985
computer should have varying difficulty levels

one way i got good was playing at a difficulty level, keep playing till i win like 5 times in a row, then up the difficulty 1 level, and repeat.

>>5725971
carlsen would utterly destroy fischer

>>5725982
>Infinite time
Top lel
Oh, Rose Elizabeth Kelly-Lines (facebook dot com slash rose.kellylines), you're such a pleb.

>>5726025
that aint me. you fucking 7/7/11-fag cretin.

also, i like to have time to plan my moves
i dont like to be rushed.

>>5726026
Keep telling yourself that, Rose. Maybe you'll believe it yourself one day.

>>5726032
fuck off, you moron.
not my fault that you get trolled by haz for 2 fucking years.
rose is just some random facebook girl, i've no idea who she is.

>>5726038
sup EK, wanna blitz?
post a lichess link and I'll join in
(not more than 5 minutes though)

How do today's CPUs compare to the Deep Blue supercomputer?

>>5726061
rybka would utterly destroy deep blue

>>5726057
im already mid-game with someone. apparently he's just been b& from /sci/, poor guy

>>5726063
if you're black, just resign already and let's play

>>5726076
yeh, im gonna lose...
shit

>>5726076
alright. set on 5 mins
http://lichess.org/tiv6hc5o

>>5726086
damnit, websockets not supported blah blah
try again

>>5726089
wait, what?

>>5725998
That's what I think, too.

Carlsen is fucking badass. Although Fischer was no one to kid around with, either.

>>5726089
http://lichess.org/g5r1an4x

>>5726092
it means i joined the game but i can't move because i forgot to enable websockets on my browser

>>5726093
thanks

>>5726062
Because of the heuristics or what? Are you telling me chess engine heuristics have advanced so much that they surpass the raw computing power of Deep Blue? I don't believe you.

damn i suck. :(

>>5726102
nah you're just an amateur (someone who doesn't have a rating), you should expect to lose against anyone >1500 and i used to have ~2100 back in the days

>>5726103
no, rybka is just that damn good

>>5726103
Yes. They have advanced that much.

And deep blue's computing power was not that impressive by today's standards. Today's chess engines on a mid level laptop would trounce deep blue (and indeed any human player) laughably.

>>5725827
Nigga that wasn't my point, I'm on a computer and yes I use it for science, it isn't the 1940's.

It's the synthesis of the two that makes it useful. You need the scientist to figure out what problems to give it. Advances in technology are starting to focus more on conceptual understanding. I know about the applications of narrow AI to these fields.

Check 'em:
http://creativemachines.cornell.edu/eureqa

There are serious limits in relying only on big data in many fields without using a predictive model beforehand, it limits how well we can forecast uncertainty and whether we can move beyond the scope of the data.

>>5725584
myself

http://lichess.org/ykt3q93e
http://lichess.org/o0dixwgb
http://lichess.org/18jh7z31
http://lichess.org/blno2pkr
http://lichess.org/re2n01lb
http://lichess.org/u7ygvzvu

Go ahead and take your pick