🚀 go-pugleaf

> I was wondering what effect you think this [computer chess players] will
> have upon the game of Chess.  There are computers now that play better
> than I probably ever will, and I am not sure how I feel about that.

I like the fact that computers are working on the game of chess.  I
don't see any problem with computers "solving" the game of chess.
Even if a computer crunched for an eon and spat out "white always
wins," perhaps accompanied by reams of data, what effect should that
have on human chess players?  None.

I own a computer that, under fast time controls, almost always thrashes
me.  I'm about a 1650, and the computer is USCF rated a shade over
2000.  (I think it has a 4MHz Z80 in it, talk about humiliating.  Then
again, if I put as much effort into chess study as went into my chess
box, my rating would be over 2000 too.)  It beats me 90% of the time at
about a minute a move.  I don't see the difference between that and a
better computer beating a better human chess player.  I still play
chess.  LONG before machines play perfect chess, they're merely going
to play better chess then humans will.

There are many endeavors at which machines excel.  Machines can travel
faster than humans, lift more than humans, cut down trees faster, work
out math problems faster, etc.  Humans still compete at all these
endeavors, but at some point, it became ridiculous for humans to
compete with machines in them.  And some day, so it will be with
chess.  But for now, computers and humans are worthy competitors for
each other.

	Andrew Tannenbaum   Interactive   Boston, MA   617-247-1155

> To begin with, though, I don't think that computers belong in
> human chess tournaments.  Special tournaments set up to test a
> computer's playing strength are fine, but I don't think that
> they belong in "opens" (the last one I played in was open to
> computers, although none entered).

If a tournament is "open", then it's open to any player.  If you
want to have "human only" tournaments, then OK.  If the object of
an open tournament is to find the strongest player, then so what if
the winner is human, machine, or martian.

> My reason for this is 
> simple.  By analogy, a robot could probably be built that could
> run faster than a human being, but that does not mean that
> we allow them in marathons.  Tournaments and competitions are
> for humans vs humans.

Says who?

> If computers started taking top prizes in
> our tournaments, I think it would delete greatly from the 
> excitement of tournament play.

I think it would be just the opposite.

> I am not a chess-computerphobe;
> I have one at home and think it is a valuable training aid,
> but I have little desire to fight it for points at a tournament.
> 
> Any opinions?

Yes.  I find this whole thing very amusing.  I was waiting to see if
Hans would respond to this.  Back in 1971 when Hans and I were graduate
students at CMU, the ACM held its first computer chess tournament.
The quality of the moves that the programs made ranged from weak at
best to suicidal and illegal!  This prompted Levi to make his famous
bet that no machine could beat him within x (I forgot the exact number)
years.  Some foolhearty computer science AI types took hum up on his
bet.  He collected.

Today, we see evidence that someday a machine may possibly be the world
champion.  This is a significant breakthrough in AI!!  For a long time,
chess was believed to be an intellectual activity that was beyond the
ability of a machine.  I'm happy and proud that Hans has been part of
this; he is finally realizing his dream.

> If a tournament is "open", then it's open to any player.  If you
> want to have "human only" tournaments, then OK.  If the object of
> an open tournament is to find the strongest player, then so what if
> the winner is human, machine, or martian.

I don't think that the object of a tournament is to find the strongest
player.  That seems a pretty narrow view.  
  
> > ... Tournaments and competitions are for humans vs humans.
> 
> Says who?

Obviously, this is a matter of opinion.  In the open tournament I referred
to, a surprisingly large number of people went out of their way to request
NOT to be paired with a computer.  The TD will not allow computers next
year for this reason.

> > If computers started taking top prizes in
> > our tournaments, I think it would delete greatly from the 
> > excitement of tournament play.
> 
> I think it would be just the opposite.

Really?  I have a hard time believing that the average (read: non-computer-
science-nut) tournament player would be thrilled by the spectacle of 
somebody's machine taking top-prize from Masters struggling to make a
living (or at least part of one) from chess.

> Today, we see evidence that someday a machine may possibly be the world
> champion.  This is a significant breakthrough in AI!!  For a long time,
> chess was believed to be an intellectual activity that was beyond the
> ability of a machine.  I'm happy and proud that Hans has been part of
> this; he is finally realizing his dream.

I realize the marvelous progress that Hans+Co. have made in the field of
AI, and as a computer scientist, can appreciate the accomplishment and
all of the blood, sweat, and tears that have gone into it so far.  There
is plenty of which to be proud.

However, I doubt that a machine will ever "be the world champion".  It may
BEAT the world champion, but will never be it.  The idea is ludicrous, just
as computers being world bridge, checkers, etc champions is silly, even though
there must be computers that could kick the stuffing out of humans in
these games.

I guess that there is really nothing to worry about, though.  As soon as
computers get better than the world champion, they will most likely be
banned from most tournaments.  Until then, it will be fun to watch the
progress, and I will not play a computer willingly at a tournament; if
I want to get creamed by a machine, I have one in my living room on
24-hour call.

derek

>> By analogy, a robot could probably be built that could
>> run faster than a human being, but that does not mean that
>> we allow them in marathons.  Tournaments and competitions are
>> for humans vs humans.
>
>Says who?

My dog would have liked to beat Carl Lewis in Los Angelos at the
100 and 200 meters, know he hears it is not for humans only.

L. Victor Allis
Free University of Amsterdam
The Netherlands

In article <504@uwvax.UUCP> derek@uwvax.UUCP (Derek Zahn) writes:
>However, I doubt that a machine will ever "be the world champion".  It may
>BEAT the world champion, but will never be it.  The idea is ludicrous, just
>as computers being world bridge, checkers, etc champions is silly, even though
>there must be computers that could kick the stuffing out of humans in
>these games.
>
I hate to disappoint you but I think bridge may be much harder for a computer
than chess.  It requires alot more judgement and psychology.
>
>derek

bill