What is the appeal of playing games that you can't beat a simple computer in?
Why do people still care about the best human Chess or Go player when they all lose to a computer?
What is the appeal of playing games that you can't beat a simple computer in?
Why do you still care about this topic (or anything), when you’re just going to die?
Because you’re a human, and humans are moronic and don’t care about anything beyond their immediate vicinity.
you can beat stockfish
and Deep Blue isn't "simple computer"
>you can beat stockfish
If you force it to make "random" mistakes.
I should have specified - you can beat stockfish that runs on average desktop with limited decision time (but tries to play optimally with resources given).
>Go
The best Go player is still human, computers have not yet broken through on that game.
Uh oh
Reminder that the AlphaGo team cheated
Cheated how?
pissed in his butt
used the computer to google the answers
They built a machine to beat Lee Sedol, not to play Go. AlphaGo only works if it is fine tuned to the player it is going against, not as a general Go playing machine.
nah, this is cope. it can beat anyone
There’s a reason it doesn’t do public games anymore
Thanks for the answer. I disagree with other anon calling that cheating.
The best Chess player is also human.
If you want to say computers are better than people at Chess, then I guess that also makes me better than anybody at Chess if I'm given a complete encyclopedia of all openings and the time to run through every sequence of every possible move.
A Chess-playing computer is meaningless.
Even if you had that, you would not be able to beat stockfish
Who said anything about beating stockfish?
That's my point. There is no competing with a computer anymore than there is competing with an encyclopedia with every chess move. It's meaningless.
It's not meaningless.
The task is to take an input state of the board and pieces then produce a move, then repeat until the game is finished.
This is well defined.
A human and a computer process information differently, and have different resources available to them, but it does not make the task meaningless.
No, you're moving the goal posts. I said the idea of competing against a computer or a computer playing a game is as meaningless as it would be if I had an encyclopedia of every possible move and response and declared myself the best Chess player.
Of course the computer can follow a programmed algorithm and browse a catalog of positions, that isn't meaningless. And it's also not what I'm saying.
But that’s the thing, the computer will compute hundreds of lines in the time it takes you to even consider a single move for a single piece.
You cannot compete
What's the appeal of any given track sport, when you can't beat an automobile in a race? People like to strive to do better. Frick computers, I can't beat lots of other people at chess, and I won't no matter how hard I try. I still enjoy calculating possibilities, and I still enjoy honing my game. That's why I like it, and whether or not a machine can do it better has absolutely no bearing on what I'm doing or why I'm enjoying.
This is hilariously midwit
Just like the OP, what a waste of bandwidth this thread is.
Why do you think so?
It's a perfectly reasonable position. Trying to discredit him by claiming he is being hilarious, when he isn't even being funny, out you as an autist and pretender. Being a midwit would be an improvement for you, moron.
Why speak to anons when o can talk to a chatbot?
Honestly, yeah.
You assume that the other anons you're talking with aren't bots
Do humans always pass the turing test?
No.
Only a portion of the human population is sentient
Humans intentionally failing the Turing test makes it easier for computers to pass it.
Some aren’t intentionally trying to fail.
NPC syndrome is a real thing
People using the term NPC unironically irl are just npcs with a quirk.
Sheeeeeeit
>What is the appeal of playing games that you can't beat a simple computer in?
You don't play games to win, Anon. You play games for fun.
Do you remember fun, Anon?
Have you ever had fun?
winning is fun
If you need to win to have fun, and can't find fun in just playing the game - or even find fun in losing a game - you shouldn't be playing.
you can't win if you don't play
And you can’t win against the computer, period.
>so play against people
Why play against someone weaker than the best?
>Why play against someone weaker than the best?
I can't tell if this is just a gag or some kind of neurodivergent issue.
People play games because they're fun, Anon.
My wife isn't the strongest Go player, and neither am I. We enjoy the interaction and mental challenge of competing with each other, but neither of us are under any delusion that we're going to be dan professionals.
If you find this confusing, you might be on the spectrum. Which is fine an all, but maybe traditional games aren't the hobby for you.
>Why play football with the lads instead of playing with the best?
I don't know, anon. Good question.
There’s a difference between sports and games, dumbo
Chess 2 when?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess960
Now
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_2:_The_Sequel
What is the appeal of climbing Mount Everest when many people have done it before you? It's a personal challenge. Challenging yourself is how you grow.
Your first question, but unironically
White people are killing the environment of Mt Everest
If a computer is unbeatable in a game, it's probably because it's simplistic and rewards rote practice and autism.
Which is not to say no one should ever play, just that it doesn't really deserve the adulation it gets and shouldn't be treated as a competitive sport.
I mean, my friends and I basically solved Arkham Horror in the late 00's/early 10's and I kinda wish we hadn't because the magic was simply gone. And that game had way more variation as far as characters/enemies went.
This pic could have been a lowkey attempt at baiting with Fischerrandom... but then.
Her crazy face would've made it a meme anyways
What is the point of doing anything you aren't the best in the world at?
We are not far from a future where all of life is a game you can't beat a simple computer in.
>*unplugs the computer*
Oh wow, look at that, I beat the computer!
>*battery online*
>*inform the authoroties from sabotage attempt*
>*plug back in with your mechanical appendige*
What now, fleshbag?
Because its about finding and testing the limits of your skills against other people, moron. You dont see the point because you dont see these strategy games as a tool for mental growth, you see it as an a foregone conclusion and that is why you will never understand the draw.
What’s the point when there’s already an upper limit you’ll never get near, let alone surpass?
That’s the case with most things more complicated than tic tac toe
The same could be said of literally any activity. Hell the same could be said of life itself. There are people out there who will, objectively, have a better, more successful, or more interesting life than I will. But suggesting that you shouldn't try to improve your lot in life because you'll never be Jeff Bezos is moronic.
There is no objective way to measure success in life. Wealth is relatively easy and so used by midwits, but it's a nebulous concept in itself and only a subjective standard.
You have no faith in humanity whatsoever?
Nope
if I have to run chess on 30 year old hardware, so does the computer.
>t. Computer
Excuse me, you call them ElctroRoboBoxes over there, don’t y’all?
If the hardware is "simple", humans can easily beat the computer. You need good hardware to play good chess.
Bait
Why do people play roguelikes with no ending
Good question, seems inherently meaningless
I really like playing chess, because it's great for training concentration and memorization - both of those skills are useful.
That being said caring about celebrities (even chess ones) is completely moronic and only smooth brains do that.
Who do you learn from?
Yasser has some nice books for starting out, but for preparing my opening repertoire I mostly use computer analysis I do on my own.
John Henry said to his captain,
"A man is nothing but a man,
But before I let your steam drill beat me down,
I'd die with a hammer in my hand, Lord, Lord,
I'd die with a hammer in my hand."
That's why.
The homie died.
what is the appeal of posting on Ganker when neural networks do it better than the best human shitposter?