Author: KarinsDad
Date: 16:11:27 06/15/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 1999 at 17:41:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >I think if you like the concept, it's good chess. We already have this (more or >less) in correspondence chess anyway. I see no reason to fear it. > >Consider the Olympics. We no longer make 'em run naked and with bare feet. >They get track shoes. Makes their times a lot faster too. > >Obviously, in the case of advanced chess, you have somewhat of a cybernetic >organism. I don't see why anyone should find that particularly disturbing. It's not a matter of finding it disturbing. I do not find technology disturbing. I find technology fascinating. Advanced chess is to me is like putting a headset into a defensive backs helmet in football (for both teams) and using a high powered microphone to pick up the calls from the other team. Both sides can play a REALLY good defensive game since they know what the other side is probably going to do (i.e. the headset minimizes short term tactical mistakes just like the computer in advanced chess). But, then again, I do not like chess clocks with delays either. It could just be that I am stuck in my ways. I like activities to be totally fair, above board, and competitive. I think that using a computer is somewhat like cheating where both sides get to cheat. I think that using a chess clock with a delay in order to maintain a draw when you have used up 2 hours and 59 minutes of your time is also somewhat like cheating. Mistakes are part of the game and time pressure mistakes are definitely part of the game. This idea of attempting to minimize mistakes with advanced chess and delays on chess clocks is just another way in our society of trying to equalize everyone. There is a difference between technological advantages which improve performance equally for everyone (such as your track shoe example) and ones like advanced chess which can both minimize mistakes of one opponent (since the other opponent may not have made that mistake in the first place) and give one opponent opportunities in the contest that the other opponent may not have (by showing a variation that the person may not have thought of on his own). I guess it's a morality type of issue with me, not a technological threatening type of issue. It's not that advanced chess is so threatening, it's just that it is not chess. 2 people, x amount of time, 1 chess board, good luck. KarinsDad :) PS. It wasn't great chess in the Anand Karpov dual.
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.