Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 23:09:07 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 00:20:10, Albert Silver wrote:
>On May 18, 2000 at 17:32:19, Dann Corbit wrote:
>>On May 18, 2000 at 16:58:50, Albert Silver wrote:
>>[snip]
>>>That seems to be the crux of it doesn't it? The problem is that almost all of
>>>the arguments have had to do with the fear (or lack of) of the opponent. What if
>>>it has nothing whatsoever to do with it? Where will fear (cowardice) or the lack
>>>of (bravery) enter the scheme here?
>>>
>>>I think it is great that we may see a PC program play in a top notch tournament
>>>as was announced for Dortmund. I say 'may' in light of the recent FIDE news of
>>>course. I also unreservedly condemn the participation of Fritz in the Dutch
>>>national championships. It isn't because I am afraid of what its results might
>>>be, but because I believe a computer has no place in a national championship. A
>>>national championship IMO is more than a tournament and as such a program has no
>>>place in it. If I were to somehow convince FIDE to allow me to participate in
>>>the Women's World Championship cycle, and the ensuing outrage caused several of
>>>my potential opponents to refuse to play me, would you accuse them of cowardice
>>>or bravery? You could certainly argue both, but I think it is neither, as it
>>>isn't my ability (too much or too little) that is in question. I don't think Van
>>>der Sterren refused to play Fritz based on any opinion he had on the possible
>>>outcome.
>>
>>This is an interesting position. From Bill Wall's chess trivia:
>>
>>In 1967 MacHACK VI became the first program to beat a human (rate 1510), at the
>>Massachussets State Championship.
>>
>>In 1976 CHESS 4.5 won the Class B section of the Paul Masson tournament in
>>Northern California. The performance rating was 1950.
>>
>>In 1977 CHESS 4.5 won the Minnesota Open winning 5 games and losing one. It had
>>a performance rating of 2271. Stenberg (1969) became the first Class A player to
>>lose to a computer.
>>
>>In 1977 SNEAKY PETE was the first chess computer to play in a U.S. Open, held in
>>Columbus, Ohio.
>>
>>In 1981 CRAY BLITZ won the Mississipi State Championship with a perfect 5-0
>>score and a performance rating of 2258.
>>
>>{I suspect that the outcry started about right here... where the darn thing won}
>>
>>In 1988 DEEP THOUGHT and Grandmaster Tony Miles shared first place in the U.S.
>>Open championship. DEEP THOUGHT had a 2745 performance rating.
>>
>>In 1989 DEEP THOUGHT won the world computer championship in Canada, with a
>>rating of 2600. DEEP THOUGHT defeated Grandmaster Robert Byrne in a match game.
>>
>>On May 11 1997, DEEP BLUE defeated Garry Kasparov in a 6 game match.
>>
>>Before the computers started to win, nobody seemed to care much if they entered
>>the contests. Now that they are competitive, people care a lot.
>>
>>Let's face it, if the computers were pushovers we would allow them to enter.
>>After all, it was not a problem in the past when they *were* pushovers.
>
>The State Championship should have had cries of protest from the beginning, but
>as to the rest they were opens and not the title-holding event. When were they
>ever allowed in a National Championship?
This is fairly close to that:
In 1988 DEEP THOUGHT and Grandmaster Tony Miles shared first place in the U.S.
Open championship. DEEP THOUGHT had a 2745 performance rating.
>>Now that they are serious competition, the doors are starting to slam shut.
>>
>>I simply don't buy any of the arguments that these contests are purely for
>>humans and that is the reason computers should not be allowed to enter.
>>
>>We are all cringing in fear that they are better than we are. That's why we bar
>>the door and that's why we say they should not play. Any other reason is just
>>attempted face saving.
>>
>>We have already lost to them.
>
>Are you kidding? They are computer programs. They are tools. Nothing more. What
>does that have to do with a national championship? You can measure the program's
>relative strength but I can't see what that would have to do in a tournament of
>being national champion.
If we are afraid to compete against them, I can see where there would be a
problem.
>You don't declare motorcycles the champion of the 100m
>dash, do you? Go then to a motorcyle race and see the greats race. If the
>championship were just about speed and mechanics, the manufacturers would juts
>get a very long strip and do the comparisons there by remote control. We go to
>the races to see others race.
Yes, of course. We have already conceded that we lost that one. Motorcycles
can beat the pants off of us in a foot race. That's why they are not allowed.
If they were a handicap, I don't think anyone would care much.
>A national championship is the summit of the
>player's ability to compete and declares one as the most apt that day. Chess
>programs are not sentient, and thus do not compete.
Chess programs most certainly do compete. But I suppose it is a matter of
opinion. They certainly don't know if they have won or lost.
>You can put them in the
>strongest tourneys to see their relative strength, but with all due respect, a
>national championship is a completely human event, and to have a computer there
>is completely ridiculous.
Only if you are afraid of them. I do think the program should have been written
by a programmer of that country, though.
>
>Otherwise I'm going to go inscribe a Suzuki in the next race and see if I can't
>get me a gold medal. Any runner that protests is just chicken.
>
>Don't like it?
>
>*pluck* *pluck* *pluck*
We both agree, that battle has been lost. Machines can out run is. They can
out lift us, out jump us, blast us to smithereens, and generally beat us
physically in every way that we can imagine.
And now the battle of the mind -- who is stronger, man or machine -- has been
lost also. We are cringing in fear of them and want to keep them out. Whether
you are the stronger or the weaker, once you have surrendered you have lost.
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.