Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 08:10:06 02/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 01, 2000 at 03:55:30, Alvaro Polo wrote: >On January 31, 2000 at 18:38:43, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 31, 2000 at 17:40:47, leonid wrote: >>[snip] >>>Also all this people that work now in the field of chess programming are the >>>real killers of future chess game. Once all the programs will beat the human (we >>>are almost there), human will drop the game for ever. Why play the game that >>>humilate you all the time and indice you dealy feeling of unavoidable >>>inferiority? >> >>No way. >> >>A fast chess program on a fast computer can already beat 99.999% of us 99.999% >>of the time. Did that kill our love for the game? Those who can stand against >>them as peers are a very elite minority. In essense, the death knoll you >>mention was crossed long ago. >> >>A race car or motorcycle can clobber a sprinter in 100 meters. Did that wipe >>out the Olypic games or even lessen our enthusiasm? >> > >A race car ot motorcycle is a tool. A chess computer is a complete substitute. > >I believe that when computers are way better than humans, interest in chess will >not vanish, but it will diminish, and money is going to become scarce. A >question here, what has happened in the checkers world? I understand than >computers are already better than humans there. > >Alvaro The checkers world was shrinking anyway: there are already very few young players. I don't think Chinook's existance really changed the long-run direction of checkers. Chess may be saved because of the internet, or maybe not. Classic games are apparently a lot less popular with kids than first-person shooter games, though. Dave
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.