Author: Timothy J. Frohlick
Date: 08:44:39 01/27/03
Go up one level in this thread
Peter, If it takes 50 more years for chess to be solved by machines then I am happy since I will not live to be 103 years old. For everybody except the top 1000 players in the world the chess computers give a reasonably strong fight at present. TJ On January 27, 2003 at 11:28:20, Peter Kasinski wrote: >In one of the posts Bruce observed that chess was a zero-sum game. I understand >the math of it, but reading it made me realize the predicament of computer chess >fans. It appears that emotionally all these contests follow a downward spiral. >Any rational outcome leaves people dissatisfied. We start in awe of the human >player as nothing else provides a worthy backdrop to the admired chess programs. > We want to witness the Herculean effort needed to contain the monsters. But >what when the fight is over? A human win by definition undermines the hype >about computer chess. An injured monster? We object. Surely a better program, >faster CPU, or at least a decent book, were not too much to ask. On the other >hand - a computer win instills fear that our passion is perhaps being solved and >rendered trivial and uninteresting. That’s why rational explanations are not >accepted. Conspiracies and higher intervening powers are summoned to prolong >the illusion that the next contest can be as fulfilling as this one was meant to >be. > >I (for one) remain grateful for this opportunity to admire both sides, with >their talent, and passion, and energy on display. I believe that this is but a >fleeting moment and that in 10 years or so, no one will be interested in a >contest like this again. Chess is not being solved, but perhaps our (human) >ability to dispute this point over the board is fading rapidly. > >Let’s sit back and admire. > >PK
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.