Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 19:26:35 10/24/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 2002 at 20:14:04, Russell Reagan wrote: >On October 24, 2002 at 17:33:05, martin fierz wrote: > >>>Why do you ask? No human world champion calibre player has ever lost 10-0, or >>>even come close to losing 10-0, much less 20-0 or 40-0, so what's the point of >>>even asking? >> >>umm, you are young my friend :-) >>too young to remember the candidate's matches which the one and only bobby >>played and won 6-0, against players who were also "candidates", meaning world >>champion calibre players. > >What I meant to say was that no world class human player has ever lost horribly >to a computer. Perhaps that's because computers have been on the chess scene for only a very short time. >Even if I'm wrong and don't know of a few cases where it has >happened, the norm is that it's usually about even when you have top humans >against top computer chess programs. > >I'm not sure if we will ever reach a time when the best computer can beat the >best human 10-0. I suspect that even if we have computers announcing mate in 342 >after move 4 of the game, that doesn't mean that a world class GM won't be able >to find those moves to get him to the draw. Sure, we will reach a point where >winning is almost out of the question, but I don't think draws will ever be >impossible, and so I don't think we'll ever be shutout consistently. Dominated, >maybe, but not shutout. Well, look at this issue "philosophically!" Today, chess engines are [I presume] NOT programmed to "deliberately" and "intelligently" set traps for humans. But as the chess engines get better, running also on faster and otherwise better hardware, there might come a time when the computers would be "smart" enough to set extremely good traps for their human "victims" if only the human programmers would allow them to do so. These very subtle traps might be designed to take advantage to the known human weaknesses. It might even be possible to set traps involving some risk for the chess engine, knowing that it is highly probable that the humans would not see the refutations. On a lighter note: Secretly, I suspect that all chess programmers are subconsciously biased AGAINST computers [!!!], not wanting the software to become better than humans, and so the programmers deliberately program the engines so that they cannot set traps for humans. : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) >You know more about checkers than I, so perhaps you can answer this better. >Aren't checkers programs better when compared to humans than chess programs vs. >humans? I think I remember Shaeffer saying that Chinook pretty much played >perfect checkers, and even so it was not able to beat the world's best human, >and much less shutout the world's best human. No doubt that a single slip would >cost the game in chess or checkers against programs that play perfectly, but I >think humans have shown the ability, at least some of the time, to play close >enough to perfect to reach a draw. > >What do you think? > >Russell
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.