Author: Mig Greengard
Date: 15:20:39 08/07/02
Go up one level in this thread
To the contrary, it is precisely BECAUSE we are at this stage that it is worthwhile and interesting. 15 years ago man-machine was boring because the humans always won. 15 years from now it will be boring because the machines will always win. So enjoy this golden age while you can. Your argument can be applied to just about anything you don't want to do. Why learn to ride a bike when in a few years you'll learn to drive? Why do anything when in a few decades we'll all be dead? If we had never tried to play computer chess, we never would have known that the best method, for now, is very unlike how humans think. How are we going to get to that point in 2010, as you say, when computers always win, if we stop playing now? Mig On August 07, 2002 at 16:06:55, Stuzzi Kadent wrote: >The question was never if computers were going to be definitively more effective >players than humans but when. >Since we are roundabout this stage, is there really any point in paying Kasparov >750000 USD to play a computer program? Who and how to recoup that money? The >article on Chessbase is terrible. I do not even know who Mig is talking to >though it seems to be FIDE financing this absurdity. >And what is the point of an annual human versus computer championship? That is >not going to last past 2010 when computers will never fail a match and chess >will be neatly filed in the AI drawer along with draughts and forgotten. >Chess is not even a very good choice in showing how computers can perform >intelligent tasks that humans can since it is so limited. In fact the example of >chess failed since it conquered Chess by thinking very unlike humans. How did >that help us?
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.