Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:10:06 12/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 27, 2002 at 23:15:42, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On December 27, 2002 at 21:38:07, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On December 27, 2002 at 21:13:55, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>as long as the best humans can beat the best chess programs occasionally, the >>>competition between chessprogrammers and chessplayers is good for the >>>'overall-popularity' of chess. >>>In 2050 (and much earlier I presume) no human being (without help of >>>computers)will be able to beat computers any more. popularity of chess will >>>decrease a lot. >> >>Obviously, neither I nor anyone else can say with absolute certainty that chess >>will become more or less popular by 2050. I hope that chess becomes even more >>popular than it is today. >> >>Here is my "wishful thinking" on this topic: >> >>It seems likely that competition between humans and unfettered chess engines >>would no longer be of any interest, since the outcome would be known in advance. > > >> >>On the other hand, by 2050, chess computers should be SUPERB analysis machines. >>The availability of such machines might make human vs. human chess competitions >>much more popular. I would expect the World Champion of 2050 to be much >>stronger than the World Champion of 2004. Why? Because the chess analysis >>machines would provide truly superb analyses, raising the level of post-mortem >>analyses. > >most people dont like to see perfect games which are prepared >till move 36 leading to a draw because both players >have calculated out everything at home. >for the majority it is much more fun to watch GM games with mistakes. >If both players would use fast computers and databases and also get enough time >to use them, they could play almost perfect chess even today. most games would >end in a draw. unfortunately for the majority is draw=boring. >if you combine the forces of a powerful chess engine and a strong chessplayer >who really has experience in using computers efficient you get a monster player. It sounds like the above paragraph is talking about "Advanced Chess," where both human contestants in a match are allowed to use chess software during the game. Maybe, by 2050, the chess computers will be so fast and efficient that they will greatly assist the players during the games. Perhaps the games played then will be "monster games." But will they be error-free? There will still be the human element, so I doubt it. Bob D. > > > > >> >>Consider the following scenario: >> >>A chess player routinely does post-mortem analysis of all his/her games. >> >>The positions in the games where that chess player "failed to solve the problems >>of the position" would be thoroughly analyzed and studied until the chess player >>fully understood the positions. >> >>These key positions would be indelibly imprinted on the memory due to the >>intensive and extensive post-mortem analysis. >> >>In future games, the chess player will not make the same mistakes. In fact, >>he/she will recognize similar positions and will remember the lessons learned >>from them. > >It is not possible to remember everything. The more you know the more you can >forget. chess is much too complicated. > >> >>In other words, the human chess player would learn faster and better. The >>quality of chess would improve worldwide. > >not necessary. opening knowledge will improve. humans and computers analyse >completely different. > > The use of such wonderful analysis >>machines would make post-mortem analysis a very popular activity among chess >>players. > >in fact, too much post-mortem analysis with computers can weaken your chess >strength a lot. > > >> >>Why not today? The chess engines of today are simply not up to speed yet, and >>they must run on computers that are as slow as slugs. >> >>Bob D. >> >> >> >>>it will become an ordinary game almost like checkers. >>>a change of the rules will be the only way out then. >>>there exist a lot of chess variants. Look at www.chessvariants.com for example. >>>however, only that one who keep the main structure of the game will have a >>>chance to become accepted. >>>Fischer-Random-Chess or 10x10,12x12 chess variants would change our game >>>completely. >>>at ICC it is possible to play a quite popular chess variation called Crazyhouse >>>(see http://www.chessclub.com/help/crazyhouse)where you can drop in pieces >>>instead of making an ordinary chess move. >>>unfortunatly you need two sets of pieces, if you wanted to play it >>>without computer monitors. >>>and even more important: the course of the game changes completely. >>>it becomes much more tactical and much more unpredictable too. >>>nevertheless, it seems to me that dropping in pieces is the only way to keep the >>>initial position of classical chess and most of the rules and increase >>>complexity. >>>just imagine: >>>both players get an extra bishop and an extra knight (only one minor piece would >>>be enough too) at the beginning of each game to drop in whenever they like >>>instead of making ordinary moves. >>>the complexity of the game would increase enormous, even if it is only >>>allowed to place them at first [eight) rank. >>>much of your work would become meaningless. you would have to start again. >>> >>>dont take this too serious. >>> >>>Michael
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.