Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:57:24 11/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2000 at 20:13:28, Bruce Moreland wrote: >You have to deal with this even if you don't bring theology (or free will versus >determinism, which isn't dependent upon theologoy, I think) into it. The game >of chess is computable, it is possible to devise an algorithm that will prove >the correct result for any specific position. The only limitation is time of >execution. > >So, when you make your move, you have to deal with the idea that there are one >or more best moves in a given position, and it is possible in theory to know for >a fact what they are. > >This wouldn't stop me from playing chess, I can't understand why it would stop >anyone from playing chess. > >bruce In respect of these thoughts, computer chess is unique. Think about other sports where human endeavor has been surpassed by machines - for example, racing. First there was running. Then there was horse racing. Now there's motor racing. All three sports are still going strongly - despite the existence of the others. However - would motor racing still be as much fun if you already knew the result before the race began? I think there's a real possibility that computer chess will go that way. When 2 computers play each other, you will know, before the game begins, that it is going to end in a draw (or, much less likely in my opinion, but still possible, a win for white). While this wouldn't immediately kill human chess, it would certainly kill computer chess stone dead. -g
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.