Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: 114289 - A example for the tension between chessplayers and comp experts

Author: Hans Gerber

Date: 16:22:15 06/16/00


In my studying some recent messages I found the following.

------------

On June 13, 2000 at 05:01:25, blass uri wrote:
[snip]
>The problem is that a lot of humans do not want to play against programs in
>their best.
>
>The result is that computers are not allowed to play in most human tournaments.
>
>If you want to see more comp-human games in tournaments the only possibility is
>to have limitations for the programs in part of the tournaments.
>
>I think that limitation about the hardware is the only possible idea to get more
>comp-human games.

If this is true, then the GM's are cowards.  IMO-YMMV.  If they would expend
effort learning how to defeat computers they would not be so unnecessarily
fearful of them.  Even at that, though, someday the computers will be better.

>I do not want to have less comp-human games when the computers have no
>limitations but to have also computer-human games when the programs have
>limitation about the hardware so using opening book is not a good idea because
>you have less memory and cannot use big programs if you use an opening book.

If the GM's are afraid to play the computers then I will be satisfied to watch
the GM's play the GM's and the computers play the computers.  The only regret I
will have over that situation is that I won't know when the computers definitely
pass the GM's.

To me, the most interesting matches are between very good computers and very
good humans.  But if the humans don't want to play, we can't make them can we?


------------------------------


Short annotations from my side. It is astonishing that the people I discussed
with have not been aware of such articles.

The whole standpoint of Dann Corbit is IMO false.

1. GMs are no cowards. The would be ready to meet any chessic challenge!

2. GMs are not afraid! The opening books (that was the topic the quoted article
was meant for) simply constituate a difficulty you have to work with. Not that
the work caused you real trouble but it isn't worth the money you get for it (as
a GM professional). If you had at least paid time enough to prepare but the
totality of opening books is something that is so artificial, so non-human, that
a special incentive must be there to accept that challenge. Money - nothing
else. A little more: computer experts might doubt this, but the most complete
opening book is for a real GM (with the possibility to prepare for) _not_ a real
challenge! But of course it costs energy...

3. Computer people couldn't do anything about it??
Of course you hold the keys in your hands. The situation where GMs have a fair
chance will not exist for "ever", in several years it will be nonsense to play
live games against computers. So baseline is that if you are smart enough in
these days, you might get GMs to accept your challenges. But please be smart and
not arrogant! Remember, a machine has no emotions but GMs are human beings with
BIG emotions... (It always will surpass my understanding why computerchess
people object against Kasparov so feverishly. Is it a case of projection, in
psychoanalytical terminology?)


Hans Gerber



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.