Author: stuart taylor
Date: 19:41:30 06/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On June 15, 2001 at 15:09:14, Mogens Larsen wrote: >On June 15, 2001 at 14:17:19, James Robertson wrote: > >>This misses the point. Competition against machines in the physical realm is fun >>because there are no androids that destroy us in, say, a marathon or basketball >>game. Cars and buses are just so different that we aren't really competing >>against them. > >My attempted humorous response (and subsequent failure) was aimed at the "what >is the great value of our human GM's...." remark. Mainly because I understood it >as "Why do something in an less effective manner". The reply from Stuart showed >that I wasn't too far off the mark IMO. The analogy could probably be a few >million times better. > >>As far as I know though, there are few, if any mind games humans still play >>seriously that computers have mastered. Sure, people have spelling bees, but >>then there are not world spelling championships that anyone cares about. You >>will notice there is not a terrible amount of interest in checkers, and someday >>I believe chess will follow that fate. > >That could very well be correct. > >>For this reason I can't understand why anybody would WANT computers to be better >>than humans. That just speeds up the trivialization of chess. Look what happened >>in the public's eye when DB beat Kasparov.... I think that that match really >>lowered the mystique of chess in people's eyes. > >Well, that's a tricky one. For a while I've been of the opinion that computer >domination should be proven as soon as possible to get rid of computer programs >in human events. Even though I'm sure that software developers will try to drag >it out for as long as possible. But you may be right about your prediction on >the decline of interest. I'm not as certain, because the appeal of human-human >combat will still be there. Checkers have never been as popular as chess AFAIK. >Not that it might have any importance on future interest by default. > >Regards, >Mogens I was drawn to chess largely because of the mystique which I pressumed had quality behind it. But the type of mystique which still has quality behind it is now a different story completely, thanks to computers. So, in a way, why bother? It's getting so tough that It's almost not within huuman ability anymore, e.g. to crush a machine so convincingly. Only the very greatest hard-working experts are only just able to side-step all the computer hurdles and push in a bit of knowledge which the computer misses, and get something out of it, and arrive, panting heavily to the finish line. Most humans, even if they have the knowledge, will simply not have the energy and stamina to take it through to the end, and soon none will, and with that advantage, the computers will have ruined the perception of chess. And when cold calculation beats mystique, that's really a shame. For me, that ruins the mystique. S.Taylor
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.