Talk:Advanced chess

Vernor Vinge

I know little about chess and I don't doubt that Gary Kasparov came up with his idea for Advanced Chess independently, but just fyi he's not the first person with the idea. Sci-fi author Vernor Vinge had a main character in his 1984 book "The Peace War" who plays in such tournaments, and in his infamous 1997 paper on "the singularity" as he calls it, he suggests people start particpating in these types of tournaments. I'm a Wikipedia newb so I'm not sure what changes to this topic this information would warrant, if any. I just think Vernor Vinge deserves some sort of honorable mention for this concept. :) -- Nick Bousman (singe@ix.netcom.com) 17:02, 24 Mar 2005 (PST)

It's interesting trivia, but I think that Advanced Chess gained its popularity because of Kasparov's independent introduction of it. It wouldn't hurt to mention that somewhere in the article, though. --Malathion 23:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Done. --IanOsgood 19:09, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Plan

I noticed that the article links to a Plan article that does not mention chess, but instead the concept of a Plan form more generic sense. While there are obviously many ideas in the article that would also appear in one about the conept of a "plan" in chess, it might be confusing for someon who follows the link form a sentance that (rightly) implies that the term is used for some chess specific meanning. So, I would be intrested in suggestions if people think we should:

• Add a section to the artile on Plan mentioning the more specif usage in Chess.
• Create a Plan (chess) page and disambiguate the two pages.
• Do nothing?

I could give either of the first two a decent start but being only about a 1400-1500 player myself it woudl probly be best have have some help with the details. In anyevent I though I would see if anyone wanted to discuss it before I changed anything. Dalf | Talk 00:25, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Frankly I'd prefer to simply remove the link to the plan article. I'm not sure why it is necessary to clarify what a "plan" is on Wikipedia anyway. You don't see people linking to articles on a yet, or at least I hope. --Malathion 23:11, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Hash tables?

Coming from a computing background, I find this statement perplexing:

having built-in hash tables for endgames,

What sort of "hash table" allows a computer to play a good endgame? Are you saying that it actually maintains a large database of endgames that's indexed using hashing? I was under the impression that in the endgame the computer relies primarily on search algorithms such as alpha-beta search on game trees. Deco 07:51, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• My understanding is that for end games with less than 4 or 5 pieces (depending on the pieces) databases with every possible move do exist and are used by some of the larger chess engins. A least some of that data could be stored in hash tables, possibly indexed by position. I know a few people who have written chess programs (usually Suicide Chess) and they do always seem to use some sort of hashing for opening books and endgame databases. Dalf | Talk 09:30, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Just poked around and found Endgame databases Dalf | Talk 09:41, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Dalf is right. See computer chess for more information. Simply put, tablebase generators solve chess in reverse, starting with all checkmate/draw positions and working backwards, within a certain number of pieces. The result is that you get a database with every possible position, say, with KRPvKR on the board, and the results of all the possible moves (mate opponent in 20, draw, get mated in 14, for example). This database allows the computer to play perfect chess in any position that occurs in the database. Note that the largest databases that exist on personal computers are 6 piece tablebases, since 3-6 piece tablebases are about 80 gigabytes, and 7 piece tablebases would be about 200 gigabytes I think. --Malathion 23:37, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

It is a pity that 212.200.200.176 vandalized the page today!

It is no nice to do that. --Eric Guez 22:24, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

I am that user. I meant to say, this page was obviously put here to advertise CCO (see this: http://advancedchess.netfirms.com/description.htm). Do you know what is CCO and why they go by that name? It is Computer Cheating Organization - just look up "ethical cheating" on Google and all that other Kazinski crap. Also, Kasparov sucks too.

Have a nice day.

Does CCO exist anymore? The description in the current article - "The world's largest organization for Advanced Chess on the Internet is the Advanced Chess Organization" - seems blatantly inaccurate. I can't even find a website for them. http://rybkaforum.net/cgi-bin/rybkaforum/topic_show.pl?tid=30033 says CCO died sometime around the PAL/CSS tournaments way back in 2005. As far as I can tell, to the extent that there are any Advanced Chess organizations around anymore, it's Infinity Chess. --Gwern (contribs) 23:18 7 August 2016 (GMT)

I have greatly reduced the part related to CCO, because it is not the largest world advanced chess organization even though it was one of the first, because it no longer exists since 2005, when PAL / CSS were born, and I gave greater prominence in the last chapter at Infinity Chess, which has organized the largest number of tournaments and is still active.--Cinmad (talk) 21:08, 4 April 2019 (UTC)

I published the article ″Infinity Chess″ in Wikipedia, but it was drafted (Draft:Infinity Chess). I think it deserves the publication, since that is the continuation of the PAL / CSS Freestyle and the server that organized the major and best Freestyle Chess (Advanced Chess). I ask you for help in publishing Infinity Chess. --Cinmad (talk) 22:10, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

History

On May 15, Ryan Delaney removed the initial paragraph of the History section of the article. However, I think it is crucial that this paragraph be put back (which I am doing now), as it gives insight into how Kasparov came up with the idea of Advanced Chess. Without the paragraph, there is no history to the first Advanced Chess event in Leon, and this is History section after all. With the first paragraph beginning with the description of the Leon tournament in 1998, readers are left puzzled as to how, why, who and when came up with the idea. If you have any objections to the paragraph, please let us know or try to improve the paragraph, but it is of vital importance that the paragraph stays. Btw, I am the author of the initial article on Advanced Chess.

copyright violation - help from the more experienced needed

[1]

Content was copied from the source above (paragraph Assistive devices --> History) and it doesnt look liko public domain at all.

Dont know what should be done...

132.231.54.1 20:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

I can't find any common text between that site and this one (maybe I just have trouble finding it, if you could point it out more specifically), but even if the content is identical it may have been copied in either direction or been copied from a common source. Copying from Wikipedia is totally okay if our license is respected. The initial version of this page was also copied with permission from a public website about Advanced Chess, which may have been used to inform the cited article. Deco 23:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

kasparov vs the world

although not strictly speaking a major man vs machine game that he played, is still similar to one and perhaps should be mentioned? Mathmo 15:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, it probably should. It would be easy to argue that it was a example of Advanced Chess, because the rules explicitly allowed computers on both sides. Rm999 04:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Advanced Chess "Teams" vs. Computers or Computer Programs by Themselves

The Wikipedia page on so-called "Advanced Chess" presently says nothing about how Advanced Chess human-computer "teams" or "centaurs" fare against computers or computer programs playing by themselves, without any human assistance or intervention. Can these man-machine hybrids defeat even the best computers/programs playing by themselves?

Neither does the article say anything about how Advanced Chess human-computer "teams" or "centaurs" fare against human players, relative to how computers or computer programs playing by themselves fare against human players. Are "centaurs" even harder for human players to beat than computers or computer programs playing by themselves? How much harder?

I know nothing about this topic except what I read here on Wikipedia, so I cannot even begin to write such a discussion myself. However, as someone who came here just now and read the existing discussion with fresh eyes, I believe the article cries out for the addition of such a discussion.

As the article presently stands (on November 23, 2013), it is far from clear whether human-computer hybrid "teams" are superior to machines by themselves or not. That they are or at least might be is perhaps implied, but there is no explicit discussion of this topic. In particular, no hint is given as to how much better a human-machine combination is than a machine alone, and the explanation of why the combination might be better than a machine alone is at present only murky and vaguely suggestive. (We know that the human contributes strategic planning, but we have no guide or indication as to how this strategic planning compares to that which a machine or program might have in the absence of a human "teammate." What would the same program have done on its own?) In contrast, the article makes it very clear what advantage a "centaur" has over a human alone: an improved ability to identify and avoid errors and blunders.

So I hope someone who has the knowledge and ability I lack will take this suggestion and run with it. Even if one does not agree with me that the article is deficient without such a discussion, surely one can agree that the article would benefit greatly from the addition of such a discussion. What the article presently attempts to convey would be conveyed far more fully and clearly if a discussion such as I suggest were added.

2001:5B0:24FF:3CF0:0:0:0:35 (talk) 13:16, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

I would also like to see that touched in the article. I have found this article on the subject, and this less formal blog post on the subject. Both claim that we are (2013/2014) at the turning point where humans do not add any value to the team. The human already adds no value for blitz games. --Joancharmant (talk) 22:19, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

I added that computer engine Zor won the 2017 freestyle Ultimate Challenge tournament. Computers are now superior to centaurs or man + computer teams. --Mschribr (talk) 12:46, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Advanced Chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050209204323/http://www.chessbase.com:80/events/events.asp?pid=68 to http://www.chessbase.com/events/events.asp?pid=68

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:29, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Advanced Chess. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811043655/http://advancedchess.netfirms.com/ to http://advancedchess.netfirms.com/

N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080109081914/http://www.chesslion.com:80/? to http://www.chesslion.com/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:01, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

Take back

Can a person beat a program if the person has no time controls and can use other programs and can take back as many moves as they want? I came here hoping to find answer — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.72.78.79 (talk) 06:16, 22 October 2017 (UTC)

If the program has a time limit and the human+computer has no time limit, then the human can set his computer to use 100 times the amount of time his opponent uses. The human+computer will always play better and win. --Mschribr (talk) 12:56, 20 April 2018 (UTC)

Article revision

I tried to clarify the history of Advanced Chess (Freestyle Chess) on the internet, specifying the activities of CCO and other servers better.--Cinmad (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2019 (UTC)

And I tried to clarify the English (of which I'm a native speaker--I suspect at least one previous author was not), hopefully without changing any facts. Mcswell (talk) 15:37, 13 August 2019 (UTC)

New lead section

As suggested, I created a new lead section to briefly summarize the most important points covered in the article and have a concise version of it, removing the introduction. I ask everyone to check the text and, if necessary, to improve it. Thank you.--Cinmad (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Three-Man Chess which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 05:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

"Centaur (chess)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Centaur (chess) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10 § Centaur (chess) until a consensus is reached. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 19:46, 10 December 2023 (UTC)