Author: Mogens Larsen
Date: 09:53:39 07/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 2000 at 12:10:23, KarinsDad wrote: >Actually, you should read the entire article to understand my point better. But, >just from these few sentences, I will attempt to illustrate my point. I did read the article before an excerpt was published here. >"Any chess player, even such geniuses as Kasparov and Anand, are, in fact, >helpless when fighting a machine, ..." > >Indicating that the top 2 players in the world are helpless implies that the end >of computer/human chess is practically over. > > >"especially looking into the future!" > >This implies that this is partially true now as well as definitely true in the >future. Both statements are not that far from the truth. He may not have the timeframe absolutely right, but time is in favour of the computer. No doubt about that. >"To my mind, it is immoral, even criminal, to let the audience mock at the best >representatives of our fragile chess world!" > >Excuse me? Immoral? Criminal? Fragile? We are talking a chess tournament here, >not some dictator. When people use words like this in this context, they are not >talking rationally, but rather expressing fear. What he is really saying here >(and in the rest of the article) is that he is afraid of 1) having computers in >tournaments, 2) having computers so strong that they can illustrate how poorly >humans actually play, 3) the losing of sponsors, partially due to computers, and >4) the lack of traditional tournaments. I don't support the word "criminal", but otherwise he's just stating fact. When computers are proven superior in tournament play then the interest in ordinary human chess tournaments will decrease even more. He's worried about the state of chess in general, not computers in particualar, which the article clearly demonstrates. >The article starts out with "Fewer and fewer traditional tournaments remain in >the chess calendar. The sponsors are gradually disappearing, which is >understandable. Instability in the chess world has become appalling, and a real >system for defining the World Champion is virtually non-existent." Here he's wrong. Instability is caused by the chess world itself, not computer programs. Though they are not a stabilizing factor. >Another quote from the article: "Unfortunately, the sporting results of the >human-warriors of the tournament will undoubtedly be spoiled by the >participation of the Junior-6 program, as already happened at the Holland >Championship in the spring." A rather good example IMHO. >These are major concerns for him. They may not be major concerns for all chess >players, but Shipov is definitely spooked. Worry is the correct word. However, worry isn't the same as fear. Best wishes... Mogens
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.