He is right about the engines. The engines have made it a lot easier to achieve "playing strength" because you know by hart like Magnus said the first 20 or more moves in the opening and perhaps the side lines as well which in fact levels the players very often. A good example is when Fabi, Giri and Magnus play chess, they do it almost perfectly according to the engines. Should we care about that or should we just say; That's life!?
Precisely, human brain derives positional superiority by just looking at the board. Degree of freedom at which the human brain operates for any given problem is significantly higher which is why we are creative.
They think much more efficiently than humans. They can see many moves ahead and make really odd moves that end up crushing you later in the game. Its a giant math equation that no human could possibly understand and thats why even the most creative and sly chess players can never beat a chess engine computer. It already calculated your "creative" move and like 15 moves after and it will still win.
@@ncurran29 Ur mistake is "they think". No. They calculate, based of human created databases & weighted probabilities "we program them with". Most weak minded humans today cannot comprehend this distinction, so they will be enslaved to AI...
Wesley could have just had a better starting layout of pieces, that's fischer random for you. And even if he didn't, world champions aren't infallible. Shit happens.
@@TheMartian11 You're disappointing. I said he could have, not that he did, and when someone pointed out my mistake, I acknowledged it. You must be young. Also, what I said about world champions still holds. But you're right. Nobody anywhere should ever say anything regarding any topic unless they absolutely know everything.
I don't know why AI is even mentioned here, Stockfish does use a NN nowadays, but Chess Engines still mostly rely on "simple" Math and ancient algorithms.
I don't think AI just refers to neural networks. The obvious example is that people have been talking about AI in videogames for years, and those also tend to be very simple.
Computers can never think like humans. Really disappointing to see this because computing is such an interesting topic but computers work on LOGIC. You're not being logical mr. interviewer maybe learn what you are talking about first.
There really is no place for engines in chess. Sure they can possibly lead the way into more advanced ways of playing, but they take away from what the sport really is. A battle between two minds. Definitely a bit of a crutch for weaker players.
Engines ruin openings and endgames. Not really, but memorization makes the game less exciting. At least for those of us who are worse at memorizing than calculating.
Alternate Title : Engine talks about other engines
@Baker Right u just ruined the joke..
He is right about the engines. The engines have made it a lot easier to achieve "playing strength" because you know by hart like Magnus said the first 20 or more moves in the opening and perhaps the side lines as well which in fact levels the players very often. A good example is when Fabi, Giri and Magnus play chess, they do it almost perfectly according to the engines. Should we care about that or should we just say; That's life!?
Fischerandom is becoming official
@@josemanuico5613 Bold-faced facts!
that background is deeply annoying
Fkin hell unwatchable
Why is the interviewer and Magnus drifting on the stage?
I didn't notice untile you pointed out, thanks now I can't watch the vid
Getting through the opening is comparable to getting 150 yards from the green in golf. From there a pro will crush you.
"Think like humans" that is very very wrong
people are so enamored with pseudo scientific propaganda
Exactly
Precisely, human brain derives positional superiority by just looking at the board. Degree of freedom at which the human brain operates for any given problem is significantly higher which is why we are creative.
They think much more efficiently than humans. They can see many moves ahead and make really odd moves that end up crushing you later in the game. Its a giant math equation that no human could possibly understand and thats why even the most creative and sly chess players can never beat a chess engine computer. It already calculated your "creative" move and like 15 moves after and it will still win.
@@ncurran29 Ur mistake is "they think". No. They calculate, based of human created databases & weighted probabilities "we program them with". Most weak minded humans today cannot comprehend this distinction, so they will be enslaved to AI...
I like this Magnus more than the current rockstar-wannabe one.. authentic geek Magnus
I still don't understand how how he got destroyed at Chess960 by Wesley So.
Wesley could have just had a better starting layout of pieces, that's fischer random for you. And even if he didn't, world champions aren't infallible. Shit happens.
@@Brendan123ization 960 games start with both players having the same layout.
@@EGarrett01 oh I didn't actually know that
@@Brendan123ization then why comment like you know the answer?
@@TheMartian11 You're disappointing. I said he could have, not that he did, and when someone pointed out my mistake, I acknowledged it. You must be young. Also, what I said about world champions still holds. But you're right. Nobody anywhere should ever say anything regarding any topic unless they absolutely know everything.
Whats with the annoying background
Our AI overlords designed it to get human off balance.
I don't know why AI is even mentioned here, Stockfish does use a NN nowadays, but Chess Engines still mostly rely on "simple" Math and ancient algorithms.
I thought engines machine learning to play against themselves to a level where they have already determined the best moves to win
I don't think AI just refers to neural networks. The obvious example is that people have been talking about AI in videogames for years, and those also tend to be very simple.
Computers can never think like humans. Really disappointing to see this because computing is such an interesting topic but computers work on LOGIC. You're not being logical mr. interviewer maybe learn what you are talking about first.
He knows about how to use an engine to cheat because he has experience.
There really is no place for engines in chess. Sure they can possibly lead the way into more advanced ways of playing, but they take away from what the sport really is. A battle between two minds. Definitely a bit of a crutch for weaker players.
Engines ruin openings and endgames. Not really, but memorization makes the game less exciting. At least for those of us who are worse at memorizing than calculating.
I have engines they are definitely destroying classical chess.
You either have "engines" or you have chess... but you cannot have both.