Author: Hans Gerber
Date: 05:26:27 06/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 17, 2000 at 01:06:48, Adrien Regimbald wrote: >Hi, > >I've noticed that nobody has really looked at the issue of whether it is a good >idea for a GM to play a computer in purely long term practical considerations. > >Eventually, just simply by advances in CPU speed, one can presume that computers >will reach a point where they can beat the GMs. > >With this in mind - it might not be a good long term idea to play the computers >from the GM's perspective. Right now, most of the tournaments where computers >get a chance to play the GMs are only possible by good sponsorship to encourage >the GMs to play. Do you think that the companies manufacturing computer >programs care at all about the GMs? No - they are in it for the money. Do you >think they will continue sponsoring tournaments even after their program >slaughters the best of GMs 100 times out of 100? The answer is simple - no. > >So the GMs will obviously not be able to rely on the companies advocating the >computers to sponsor them in the future. One then has to consider what will >happen to the other sponsors. I can't be sure about this, but I would imagine >that the other sponsors would probably be much less interested in sponsoring a >GM tournament when every player in the world has a home program which is >stronger than any of the GMs. > >I don't know if this is truly the reason that they don't wish to play, but it is >surely something to think about. > >Whatever the GMs' reasons - I would hope that we can be a little more >understanding of their plight. Even if the GMs are scared to play the machines, >I don't think we should be crucifying them for it. I think that all too often, >the attitude in this forum seems to be that the GMs are nothing more than guinea >pigs for our own amusement. > >Perhaps if we were a little more understanding of the GMs, and we stopped >approaching the issue like bagging another trophy for computer chess rather than >a scientific effort to improve computer chess programs, maybe, just maybe, the >attitude among the GMs would change as well. > >Can you imagine the difference if instead of having this outlook "If I lose this >game, I'm out of the prize money, and I will be publically humiliated", that the >GMs had this outlook "I'm participating in an effort to advance computer chess, >which could end up having many positive benefits" ? > >Just some food for thought. > > >Regards, >Adrien. Let me congratulate you for that deep article! Also very thoughtful that you gave it the header "What GM should think about". When in reality your are adressing all that to the people here in computerchess. Good tactics. I see a very human fact that could destroy the success of your efforts. Look please, as long as it is a respected reaction to activate your elder brother, your 'gang', perhaps even the hand of God, to attain a certain goal in a situation where you are well aware that you personally are too weak, you can't expect human beings to think deeper about the whole relevant factors in matches between their machines (their creations!) and the human chessplayers. It is a very human result that you are quickly confounding the success of the machine with your own! In the end it is between _you_ and the opponent. Look e.g. where programmers are talking about 'when I played Karpov (just enter any name you want)'. All that had to be carefully analysed... 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.