Author: Graham Laight
Date: 04:50:33 10/09/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 06, 1998 at 00:33:05, odell hall wrote: > Hi > > I realize that some may view this question to be rediculous, however I ask it >anyway in hopes of fueling some interesting debate. My extreme fascination with >chess and specifically Chess Masters began about 15 years ago, ofcourse at that >time computer programs were not very strong. For years I wanted very badly to be >able to play against a Chess Master but this was often impossible because there >were not many masters living in our area (kansas, oklahoma). When I realized >that That technology had developed the means to produce "Artificial Masters" I >was overwelmed with JOY!!. However to this very day this joy is mixed with a >deep down suspicion that perhaps What I am getting is not a "real Master" at >all. This doubt was originally fueled by an article i read in computer chess >reports back in 1994, Where someone Stated that computers are not real Masters >in the True sense of the word.(Whatever that means!). Also a couple of months >ago I asked our states strongest player(2317) If he thought that computer >programs are playing Master Level Chess. The Master stated that no they are >not!! According to the Master Computer programs play a completley different >type of Chess that is different than what humans play. To be honest this >explanation is a little confusing to me. In my opinion Chess is Chess, there is >strategy, and tactics. It is irrelevant how a person or machine arrives at the >move that it makes as long as the end result produces the win. So what does it >matter how a machine plays chess as long as it is produces good results. Using >this logic, My view is that a Master is one who produced Master level results. >Playing style being of no consequense. Is my view point valid? How many agree? I suggest a test. Take some human v computer games to this gentleman (they can be downloaded from the Web sites of the chess programmers) and see if he can accurately spot which player is the human and which is the computer. In the recent poll on this web site, 90% of you stated that a grandmaster playing a human who was secretly getting his moves from a computer would eventually realise the true nature of his opponent. I voted with the 10% who believed that the grandmaster wouldn't catch on. Even highly intelligent people can easily be fooled. People see what they expect to see. As a student, I was at Hull University, and I knew the members of the music group called "The Housemartins" (now renamed "The Beautiful South"). One of them twisted my arm and made me buy one of their demo tapes, and I thought it was awful. They went on to be very successful, including a UK chart-topping hit. I dug out the old demo tape and listened to it again. All I could hear now was musical talent and creativity! Optical (and other) illusions work because most of what the conscious mind perceives is actually CREATED by the brain, not observed in sensory input. This is true to an extent which is very surprising, once it is demonstrated to people.
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.