Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 07:11:48 10/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 11, 2002 at 05:38:04, Ed Schröder wrote:
>On October 08, 2002 at 18:12:50, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>>On October 08, 2002 at 17:56:53, Mike S. wrote:
>>
>>>On October 08, 2002 at 16:09:30, Christophe Theron wrote:
>>>
>>>>That's obvious.
>>>>My congratualtions to ChessBase. They have done an excellent job for their baby,
>>>>and also an excellent job for computer chess in general.
>>>>This is not humour, I *really* mean it.
>>>>Life is not a zero-sum game. In real life, you can achieve a great victory even
>>>>if your opponent wins.
>>>>That's exactly what's happening here. Kramnik wins. Fritz wins. Computer chess
>>>>wins!
>>>
>>>I doubt it... most often, a loss simply is a loss. Did you mean the advertising
>>>effect?
>>>
>>>It fits here too, what I've just written above in
>>>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?257490 , that more important than
>>>the number of points will be IMO, if it can score at least one *win*. If *this*
>>>cannot be achieved, it would be a major setback for computerchess or even for
>>>A.I. - Because we know, in a wider public of non-insiders, everything is
>>>simplified down to a nearly idiotic level... and they will say, superiority of
>>>machines in chess was just an illusion etc. etc. (just like the sceptics always
>>>said before Deep Blue won).
>>>
>>>(I didn't realise before the match started, how risky it probably was to
>>>challenge Kramnik in that respect... also, being in the news worldwinde with
>>>draw-loss-loss-draw-loss etc. isn't the best advertisement neither. So ChessBase
>>>took a big risk in a commercial sense, too.)
>>>
>>>Regards,
>>>Mike Scheidl
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>You are starting to see the light, Mike! :)
>>
>>Q: what has been the worst thing that has ever happened to computer chess?
>>
>>A: the victory of Deep Blue over G. Kasparov in 1997.
>>
>>
>>
>> Christophe
>
>
>Well said Christophe.
>
>The discussion will be back and that's good. You know the macabre saying, "it
>doesn't matter how they talk about you as long as they talk about you". When
>people stop talking about computer chess it is dead, over and out.
>
>Ed
Absolutely.
If people think that chess programs are unbeatable, they will not even bother to
buy one to see what it can do. "That thing would beat the world champ, so we'd
better stop playing chess and do something else".
If people think that chess programs are still beatable, chess as a game remains
of interest: "look, even if it computes several billions moves per second, a
computer cannot reach the level of perfection of the human brain when it plays
chess".
Many people are really afraid of computers and artificial intelligence, mostly
out of ignorance (and it's a general rule BTW: ignorance generates fear, which
in turn generates hate).
They will consider with disdain any field where computers are known to do better
than the human brain.
In this regard, 1997 has been a disaster for computer chess, and maybe even
chess in general.
Christophe
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.