Play Chess 1v1 Same Computer

[Flaviano Bada]

Iwas hoping that this would be a simple exercise but I have spent the last two days looking into this and can not find an answer (easy or otherwise). What I want to do is have my iMac play my Ubuntu laptop in chess over a LAN.

Setup Arena on your iMac and Ubuntu computer. Register a computer account for each computer on a server of your choice. Of course, both computers need to login on the same server. Let one computer request a match and let the other computer accept the match.

There are many free programs as well as commercial ones which can do this. Winboard (Xboard on Linux) is one free program where you can make two chess engines play each other. Shredder is comercial one where you can set to play chess engines against each other.

Hi, on the android app I can choose 'play computer' and change the computer to a human, then two people can play chess using the phone as a chessboard. But on the web interface you cannot change the computer to a human. So how do I play a game against another human using chess.com as a chessboard?

on the computer thing there's these two squares which u can tap to change if u want to be white or black. u can also tap it so that u can have human players instead. just make sure that both squares are the same. it should have a person's outline profile on the square.

Ok I see how to change from black to white using the settings icon, but still not how to change to a human player. It may be under a completely other option not under Play Computer. Here is another related question which could be used for two player to play each other - how coud I replay a game, move by move, from my notation from a previous real-life game?

Go to Learn, then Analysis. After making your first move, the engine will come up. You can then hide the engine by hovering over where it says the opening and clicking on the "X" that comes up on the right-hand side. Then you can just make moves as normal.

Its primary goal is to allow two persons to play a round of chess, no matter whether they happen to be at the same location or on a different continent. It's designed to be platform independent and to run on every computer or smart phone equipped with a modern web browser and thus enabling people everywhere around the globe to play chess, at home and on the go, online and offline.

When playing, you can se a little light bulb (?) on the bottom left, allowing you to switch on 'awareness mode'. This special mode colorizes the fields depending on which player has more pieces that can access it: Green means that white has more control over a field and red means black. Blue means both players have an equal number of pieces that can possibly strike on it. The richer and darker the color, the more pieces have access.

The color code is not a recommendation which fields to move on, it's not artifical intelligence or anything of the like. You still have to use your brains, the color code just helps you not to overlook anything.

Its minimalistic approach sets it apart from most of the other chess implementations on the internet. They usually use browser plugins like Adobe Flash or even client software to realize the game itself and offer a variety of features around it: news, riddles, communities and dozens of little gadgets.

Due to this complexity they often take a lot of clicks to get a game started, they tend to react slowly and are often cluttered with ads. Some even require registration fees in order to be able to play a game. PlainChess is free, fast and built on modern web technologies but on the other hand also passes on features beyond basic gameplay.

Spread the word, tell your friends and enemies about PlainChess; twitter, blog or write letters about it. Share it on your social networks. Send me an e-mail. Have a look at the code and add new features.

The game engine is written in JavaScript and relies on the frameworks jQuery and jQuery UI, which means that offline games can be played without internet connectivity (this would be interesting for a smart phone optimized version with HTML5 manifest).

I'm Tim Wlfle from Germany and wanted to try out the new possibilities HTML5 technologies offer. At the same time I wanted to play a quick round of chess with a friend on the internet, but didn't find anything that would allow me to start right away and without registration.

For example, you and your brother are both in your room playing on Chess.com; you on the computer, and he on his phone. Since you are both connecting from the same location, you should only play unrated games together.

Like a lot of people, I heard back in 1997 that the IBM chess computer Deep Blue had beaten world champion Garry Kasparov. I remember thinking vaguely that this represented a turning point of some kind, and then pretty quickly put it out of my mind.

In 1985, in Hamburg, I played against thirty-two different chess computers at the same time in what is known as a simultaneous exhibition. I walked from one machine to the next, making my moves over a period of more than five hours. The four leading chess computer manufacturers had sent their top models, including eight named after me from the electronics firm Saitek.

The AI crowd, too, was pleased with the result and the attention, but dismayed by the fact that Deep Blue was hardly what their predecessors had imagined decades earlier when they dreamed of creating a machine to defeat the world chess champion. Instead of a computer that thought and played chess like a human, with human creativity and intuition, they got one that played like a machine, systematically evaluating 200 million possible moves on the chess board per second and winning with brute number-crunching force. As Igor Aleksander, a British AI and neural networks pioneer, explained in his 2000 book, How to Build a Mind:

By the mid-1990s the number of people with some experience of using computers was many orders of magnitude greater than in the 1960s. In the Kasparov defeat they recognized that here was a great triumph for programmers, but not one that may compete with the human intelligence that helps us to lead our lives.

It was an impressive achievement, of course, and a human achievement by the members of the IBM team, but Deep Blue was only intelligent the way your programmable alarm clock is intelligent. Not that losing to a $10 million alarm clock made me feel any better.

Inevitable or not, no one understood all the ramifications of having a super-grandmaster on your laptop, especially what this would mean for professional chess. There were many doomsday scenarios about people losing interest in chess with the rise of the machines, especially after my loss to Deep Blue. Some replied to this with variations on the theme of how we still hold footraces despite cars and bicycles going much faster, a spurious analogy since cars do not help humans run faster while chess computers undoubtedly have an effect on the quality of human chess.

Another group postulated that the game would be solved, i.e., a mathematically conclusive way for a computer to win from the start would be found. (Or perhaps it would prove that a game of chess played in the best possible way always ends in a draw.) Perhaps a real version of HAL 9000 would simply announce move 1.e4, with checkmate in, say, 38,484 moves. These gloomy predictions have not come true, nor will they ever come to pass. Chess is far too complex to be definitively solved with any technology we can conceive of today. However, our looked-down-upon cousin, checkers, or draughts, suffered this fate quite recently thanks to the work of Jonathan Schaeffer at the University of Alberta and his unbeatable program Chinook.

This is not to say that I am not interested in the quest for intelligent machines. My many exhibitions with chess computers stemmed from a desire to participate in this grand experiment. It was my luck (perhaps my bad luck) to be the world chess champion during the critical years in which computers challenged, then surpassed, human chess players. Before 1994 and after 2004 these duels held little interest. The computers quickly went from too weak to too strong. But for a span of ten years these contests were fascinating clashes between the computational power of the machines (and, lest we forget, the human wisdom of their programmers) and the intuition and knowledge of the grandmaster.

Lured by the substantial prize money, several groups of strong grandmasters working with several computers at the same time entered the competition. At first, the results seemed predictable. The teams of human plus machine dominated even the strongest computers. The chess machine Hydra, which is a chess-specific supercomputer like Deep Blue, was no match for a strong human player using a relatively weak laptop. Human strategic guidance combined with the tactical acuity of a computer was overwhelming.

Like so much else in our technology-rich and innovation-poor modern world, chess computing has fallen prey to incrementalism and the demands of the market. Brute-force programs play the best chess, so why bother with anything else? Why waste time and money experimenting with new and innovative ideas when we already know what works? Such thinking should horrify anyone worthy of the name of scientist, but it seems, tragically, to be the norm. Our best minds have gone into financial engineering instead of real engineering, with catastrophic results for both sectors.

I started playing chess with Fran Farrell about ten years ago, shortly after I learned he had been diagnosed with ALS. At the time when we began playing, we were more acquaintances than friends, but regular play brought us closer together. After I heard about his diagnosis, I proposed that we start playing as often as we could, as I knew that ALS would eventually wreak havoc on his body, but his mind would remain sharp and alert, something that you needed when playing chess. At first, we played actual games over a board, but when his arms began to fail him, we switched to online play, first on the app Chess with Friends and then eventually on Chess.com, which he could handle better with eye-gaze technology. He gave himself the name Bridgepoint, after the street on which he lived, and I gave myself the name LHOOQ, after the five letters that the artist Marcel Duchamp wrote below an image of the Mona Lisa (that artist having been the specialty of my studies in art history, as Duchamp was himself an avid chess player).

3a8082e126