Author: stuart taylor
Date: 00:10:30 02/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2000 at 00:41:17, KarinsDad wrote: >On February 12, 2000 at 21:44:03, stuart taylor wrote: > >[snip] >> >>I think chess is different. Chess is a human endeavor, not suited to machines. >>I personally feel that if any machine can produce greater chess wisdom than >>a human, then the human may justifiably feel challenged by it. >>And that is what I'm waiting to see with baited breath-if it can happen. >> In fact I don't think there is any other endeavor that human can meet >>machine, moreso than chess! > > >Checkers? Chinese Chess? Probably so to some people. Just depends on what your >cup of tea is. > > >> The world championship should be a human. But a human I think cannot have a >>clean conscience if machine is doing better. > > >What will happen in 50 years when no human on the planet can touch the best >computers in chess? Do you think humans will have a clean conscience then? I >would think that they will still be playing chess, but the rules will change a >little: no adjournments, possibly extensions on the 50 move rule, no electronic >devices within the hall, etc. But the bottom line is that they will still >probably be playing chess, regardless of what the programs can do. > > > I'm also saying that deep blue >>has a long way to go to seriously challenge Kasparov on equal terms. >> (But it is necesary that the human should not be claiming that he didn't have >>enough time to think, as this is a different problem) >> Stuart Taylor > >KarinsDad :) The human world champions then will always be more humble. It WILL have it's effect on basic aptitude. Stuart Taylor
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.