Who will the singularity eat first?
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.
In some ways, the impact of the computer is different - it has led to a lot more rapid and speed chess being played (5 minute games, 30 games etc.), since this often avoids the huge amount of opening preparation that a computer allows in the classical slow game.
What has really, really changed is the number of armchair experts. If you watch a game between two top players, there's always a bunch of people commenting on how weak Magnus is, based on the fact that their computer is telling them he missed a move.
I was only joking
-
Speaking of popularity...
-
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.
In some ways, the impact of the computer is different - it has led to a lot more rapid and speed chess being played (5 minute games, 30 games etc.), since this often avoids the huge amount of opening preparation that a computer allows in the classical slow game.
What has really, really changed is the number of armchair experts. If you watch a game between two top players, there's always a bunch of people commenting on how weak Magnus is, based on the fact that their computer is telling them he missed a move.
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.
That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.
-
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.
That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.
That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.
I googled. I guess chess isn't actually solved to that extent and it's still unknown what perfect play on both sides would yield. That also means that the standard openings can't be evaluated completely.
-
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.
That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.
I googled. I guess chess isn't actually solved to that extent and it's still unknown what perfect play on both sides would yield. That also means that the standard openings can't be evaluated completely.
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Horace said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Doctor-Phibes said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
@Aqua-Letifer said in Who will the singularity eat first?:
Are most people making money off of those online streaming chess games?
Obviously not. People generally don't play chess for money, unless they're Magnus Carlson - even he doesn't play for money - his wealth is just a fortunate by-product of his ability.
But some folk are. Hikaru Nakamura is undoubtedly making a lot more money from his streaming endeavours then he ever did as a top Grandmaster. And Danny Rensch wouldn't have made a red cent out of chess in the old days based on his playing strength, but is probably doing very nicely out of chess.com
Yeah, my point was only that "there's a lot of activity" and "more popular than ever before" are very different things from "earning enough money on which to live." (Although yes, I'm glad the interest has gone up. I blame Queen's Gambit.)
It's also worth noting that the amount of innovation that has been introduced to the game is significant - there have been a lot of ideas and new ways of looking at the game introduced by Alphazero that have been adopted by human players.
Like new openings? Do the computers substantiate that the classic openings are the best?
Not so much new openings, but new strategies - the engines really love pushing wing pawns on the king-side, which in the old days was considered too weakening, and a lot of grandmasters do this now as a matter of routine. I know it doesn't sound like much, but you see this a lot now. Twenty years ago this wouldn't really be seen. I'm not a good enough player to understand the details, but based on what I've seen the nature of play at the top has changed.
That's interesting. I'm curious which opening is objectively the most advantageous? I assume white always wins if a perfect player is matched against a perfect player. or maybe it's always a stalemate. I mean there must be the theoretically perfect game out there, if computers have solved chess.
I googled. I guess chess isn't actually solved to that extent and it's still unknown what perfect play on both sides would yield. That also means that the standard openings can't be evaluated completely.
No, it's not solved. Computers don't play perfectly, and probably never will, they just play a lot better than people do. And actually, in some cases they still get it wrong, at least from a strategic perspective. Different engines will also find different moves, and have different positional assessments.
