Author: Wayne Lowrance
Date: 15:22:34 05/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 18, 2000 at 15:31:24, Pete R. wrote: >On May 18, 2000 at 15:08:04, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On May 18, 2000 at 15:03:14, Mike S. wrote: >> >>>On May 18, 2000 at 14:27:05, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>(...) >>>>Personally, I think that failing to rise to the challenge of playing computers >>>>shows that man's time for dominance in the game has passed. Humans may >actually *be* better right now. But already, the spirit has been broken. >Hence, humans have already lost. >>> >>>I don't think so. This fight has just begun. >>> >>>In a wider public, some might think that the 2nd match Kasparov-Deep Blue has >>>drawn the final curtain over human superiority in chess. But (as it has surely >>>been said often already) if you look at this match in detail, it shows Kasparov >>>as the better player: He won the first game, resigned the 2nd in a drawn >>>position, drew game 3-5 and threw away the last one in the opening, which >>>doesn't matter much. The only "real" victory was by Kasparov. >> >>The problem, as I see it, is that the *GM's* believe that computers are better. >>Or at least, they are afraid to play them. And I think Kasparov is probably the >>better player even than Deep Blue, but he himself is definitely afraid to play >>against computers, even the micros [only my impression, I could be wrong]. >> >>If the fight has just begun, why are the GM's running in the opposite direction? > > >I have to agree with Dann here in the sense that it *should* be too early for >humans to surrender. Perhaps people realize that it is only a matter of some >years before computers prove superior in terms of their results. How many >players can win if the computers get to 18 ply on each move? So they don't want >to see the inevitable happen. Personally if I had such chess skill I would be >inclined to fight, even knowing full well that in the future it will be >hopeless. After all it's just a game. But everyone has a different >personality, and I guess these people who refuse to play computers think it does >something bad to the image of chess if computers and humans appear equally >strong. *shrug*. Or maybe they just don't like that they were *forced* to do it >in this case, and that's why they are pissed off. It seems to me that The only real problem that GM's have with a computer chess opponent is not fear of loosing to it any more than the fear of loosing to a human opponent. What they are really afraid or perhaps should be afraid of is loosing the perception of all supreme auroa of what a super GM has stood for. In short the little silicon monsters are taking the spot light away from that elite family. I hope that it never comes to pass that a computer program is recognized as _world champion of chess_. That should always belong to the GM's. I believe computer chess folks would be more than happy to have a _world champion of _computer chess_ and thus maintain separation of the two. Having said that I would hope that GM's and Comps can get togethar and compete in serious Tournaments with the best of the best of the two groups wherein the GM's will feel comfortable and play there very best, win or loose and thus we would have a third crowned champion. Any of this make sense ? Wayne
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.