Check out Symmetric Chess, our featured variant for March, 2024.


[ Help | Earliest Comments | Latest Comments ]
[ List All Subjects of Discussion | Create New Subject of Discussion ]
[ List Earliest Comments Only For Pages | Games | Rated Pages | Rated Games | Subjects of Discussion ]

Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

Earlier Reverse Order Later
[Subject Thread] [Add Response]
Sam Trenholme wrote on Tue, Dec 26, 2006 10:51 AM UTC:
Chess is dead.  OK, let me rephrase that--it was hard to come up with a
decent heading in 16 characters or less.  Chess, as a recreation studied
by humans alone is dead.  With the defeat of world champion Kramnik by a
computer this last October, and the failure of a human to defeat a
computer in a classical tournament since the 1990s, a good move in a chess
position is now found by mechanical calculation instead of human artistry.

What does this mean for chess variants?  It means that the study of
variants will now be greatly computer assisted.  This also means the end
of romantic gambits--no computer will give the king's gambit or other
romantic gambits a second thought.  It also limits tournament options--we
either allow computers to generate moves, or have a honor system that bars
tournaments being played for prizes.  

On the other hand, it does allow the automated creation of opening books. 
Greg Stong did some of this work with his ChessV program; I expanded on his
research to create an article for openings in a variant I have created
myself.  

So, computers have definitely changed the landscape.

Gary Gifford wrote on Tue, Dec 26, 2006 02:56 PM UTC:
Chess is far from dead when it comes down to human beings playing against
other human beings.  In regard to computers... yes, the silicon brains, I
believe, do put a very dark cloud on many on-line games [both
correspondance and real-time].  But put 2 players face-to-face in a, tournament hall,
at a chess club, coffee shop, school chess work shop, or at a kitchen table and we 
have a great game which I imagine will
continue to be played, as it is now, for a long long time to come.

James Spratt wrote on Wed, Dec 27, 2006 12:45 AM UTC:
No machine will ever invent a chess variant, or challenge a human to a game
unless some human directs them to do so.  So-called 'intelligent'
machines are merely reactive, not initiative, and won't do doodle-um
unless a human kickstarts them.  (Shades of 'the Matrix' and 'Y2K'. 
Ho hum..  We da man...

Tony Quintanilla wrote on Tue, Jan 2, 2007 05:47 AM UTC:
Chess is far from dead. As far as I know, no computer can yet *enjoy* a
game of Chess! Example: my kid enjoys tic-tac-toe, another 'dead' game?!

Jeremy Good wrote on Tue, Jan 9, 2007 01:27 AM UTC:

I don't think computers truly test the strength of artificial intelligence through application to FIDE since computers reflect the accumulated strength of years of human scholarship and practice. A sounder test would be an exotic chess variant that is relatively unexplored. For example: Could the most advanced computer beat a panel of expert chess variant specialists at microorganism chess?

Another thought: Each chess variant is itself an artificial intelligence program. When we play them, we are merely glimpsing the inner workings of the machines we have built.


M Winther wrote on Tue, Jan 9, 2007 08:51 AM UTC:
Chess programs, like Deep Fritz, have recourse to immense opening and
endgame databases. So why don't the human opponents have this resource?
It's not a fair fight. /Mats

James Spratt wrote on Wed, Jan 10, 2007 02:18 AM UTC:
Well, I think a computer chess program constitutes much prior human
thinking beforehand, so ultimately, it is still human vs. human, the
player vs. the programmer. Further, the machine or program is dedicated to
solving the chess problem at hand, not really to defeating an opponent, in
a rather cold way, because, having no 'life,' it doesn't really care if
it loses and isn't subject to the many distractions and self-defensive or
wilfully aggressive exercises of will that color human decision-making. 
The human playing against a machine pits some 3 trillion neurons against x
number of bytes, which would seem to be a huge advantage for the human, but
focusing enough of them while ignoring distractions of life via other
sensory inputs makes it tougher.
  Maybe a sensory deprivation chamber and memory wipe would help.

7 comments displayed

Earlier Reverse Order Later

Permalink to the exact comments currently displayed.