Author: Sally Weltrop
Date: 19:10:55 07/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2003 at 21:45:27, steven blincoe wrote: >well Kasparov is one...oh wait no..thats right i forgot.. >he either accuses everyone of cheating if he loses to a computer >OR >he tanks and offers draws in a winning position when the money is on the line.. > >some "last stand" for humanity he turned out to be.. >pfftt heehe, good one, loved his playchess.com live event recently, "Does that mean it's illogical to compare humans and computers in matches? I think it's important to remember they are very different. If a human can win a game, then they can still compete. The human players are under tremendous pressure. But even with ideal conditions, there are always problems: bad weather, family problems, a headache, whatever. That's why I can hardly imagine a human player being able to play six games with the same strength, while the machine will be the same machine. That's why the long-term experiment will be whether, on his best day, the best human player assisted by a machine to prepare the game could beat the best machine. If it happens, it means we are still superior. And do you think it will happen? From a personal perspective, I still think I'm capable of beating machines. When I played Deep Junior in New York I was under very heavy pressure - and I had less than 2 weeks of preparation. I think I was dominating the match before I chose to go for a draw. What was positive was that it was human mistakes that actually helped the machine to tie the match. When I played good moves I was dominating. It was my big mistakes that changed the match. The average quality of my moves was much higher. But the machine doesn't make blunders. That's why I think that overall the Deep Junior match is extremely positive. First, it demonstrated that this experiment has an important scientific value. Second, that the public is still curious, which means the experiment has a social value. And third, that humans still dominate unless they make big mistakes. Our average quality among the top-class players is still superior to the best machine. I think that human versus machine should be taken as a separate contest and be treated as fairly as this independent Deep Junior competition treated it. And human plus machine versus human plus machine should be designed as another independent competition. I don't think machines will kill creativity. If we treat computers properly, they will actually add new flavours to the game of chess. GK ALWAYS has excuses! HE lost to Deep Blue and then his next match was a draw! It's only been 6 years and still he hasn't done it. Time to shut his mouth and accept he can't do it. > >Steve
This page took 0.01 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.