Author: Albert Silver
Date: 08:24:03 05/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 19, 2000 at 02:09:07, Dann Corbit wrote:
>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]
>>>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.
Really? You think that if I were to try to qualify for the Olympic 100m dash by
inscribing a slow remote controlled 10 cc motorbike that could go at 5 mph tops,
the competitors would have no problem with this? Everyone would give me the
thumbs up? You can organize races with such participations, and have the bike
win or lose, but are you going to declare the bike a national champion if it
wins? Not at all, you'll just register the result, note the progress of machines
in the area and that's it. Maybe get a nice newspaper piece if you're lucky, but
so what?
Computers and thus the programs, are getting there, and there is no question
about it. Now we are waiting for entry-level PC programs to to reach GM level,
or at least have it generally recognized. Soon, it will be 2600 I guess, and
then even more. Eventually, programs won't even have to be as specialized
state-of-the-art programming in order to beat the best of us. Fine. I have NO
doubts about it, and any concern I have isn't whether they are stronger, but on
the future of my passion as openings really are overanalyzed, killing much of
the real adventure and discovery. Fritz could very well be the absolute best.
Unbeatable, unstoppable, a steam-roller. I still wouldn't make it national
champion. I just don't understand the point. You can measure it, and it can
outperform us, but that doesn't mean it is competing. It is a machine, that's
it. I'm into computers, chess, and chess programs as much as the next, and never
cease to be amazed at how things have evolved, but this makes no sense to me.
Really not.
Albert Silver
>
>>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 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.