Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 08:58:59 05/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 21, 2000 at 11:15:00, Albert Silver wrote: [snip] >I know. I'm not being completely honest when I compare the two forms of racing >as there is a little more fascination and interest in a chess game in this case >until it gets too lopsided, so that man-machine games and events are extremely >interesting (good moves, anti-computer strategy or not, how long will we keep >our edge, etc...), BUT..... that has nothing to do with declaring a machine >national champion. > >I'm not too fond of cyborg chess as is shown in Advanced Chess. Let something >else do your thinking while all you do is point the direction? This may sound >like Formula 1 racing more than ever, but I think you are taking out the main >effort from the confrontation and it loses its sporting interest significantly >(even if it can produce great games). In F1 the drivers are still driving around >at 300km/h where a fraction of a second can be the difference between life and >death, hence the nature of the event is changed considerably; not so here. I think to play cyborg chess "advanced chess" properly the players will still have to think just as hard or harder. They will also need to know when their idea is better. I have to admit that some of your arguments are rather compelling. Your notion of competition is that the emotions are the all-important part. I have never even thought of it that way, but perhaps most people feel the way you do. I have often considered them more as experiments to determine an outcome, but I must admit that back in the days when I performed in various sorts of competitions I did not feel that way then.
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.