A Chess forum. ChessBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » ChessBanter forum » Chess Newsgroups » rec.games.chess.computer (Computer Chess)
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

creating the next world champion



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old August 20th 03, 11:14 PM
Scott
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion

Every time we see a new up-and-coming player we get excited and hope
they will be "the one" - the next fischer/kasparov/etc. The chess
world has had many disappointments such as with josh waitzkin among
others. When we are lucky - a combination of nature/nurture creates a
truly exceptional player but often the realities of the current
social and economic atmosphere forces these top players to other
professions and interests. While the internet can help to spread
chess to a mass audience the internet can act in the opposite way to
divert ones attention to any imaginable topic. What is the solution
to this problem? We must create our world champion! Through a
combination of cloning, genetic engineering, intensive focused
training, and use of computer technology! Reminds me of that 80's
movie D.A.R.Y.L. ;-)

-Scott
  #2  
Old August 21st 03, 04:42 AM
The Masked Bishop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion

We must create our world champion! Through a
combination of cloning, genetic engineering, intensive focused
training, and use of computer technology!

I agree. But this time, for once, let's have a hottie. Think of it...the
body of Britney, with the acumen of Pillsbury! Or maybe J Lo's butt combined
with Lasker's endgame! Yumm...

TMB


  #3  
Old August 21st 03, 11:08 AM
Albert
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion


"The Masked Bishop" wrote in message
y.com...
We must create our world champion! Through a

combination of cloning, genetic engineering, intensive focused
training, and use of computer technology!

I agree. But this time, for once, let's have a hottie. Think of it...the
body of Britney, with the acumen of Pillsbury! Or maybe J Lo's butt

combined
with Lasker's endgame! Yumm...

TMB



Dangerous,

remember this: Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a
table. "Hey Albert," said Marilyn. "Imagine if we had a baby and it had my
looks and your brains it could do anything it wanted." "Yes, my dear,"
replied Einstein. "But what if it has my looks and your brains?"


Albert


  #4  
Old August 21st 03, 03:12 PM
EZoto
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion


You sound like some jealous shmoe who just wanted to take a cheap shot
and Joshua Waitzkin, covered with all this dribble you wrote down.

Trolling along.

EZoto
  #6  
Old August 22nd 03, 03:51 PM
Jeff Stephens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion

It is my opinion that the next few years will produce a computer program
w/accompanying hardware
which will be unbeatable by any human opponent at any time limit. I may be
optimistic about the
time limit, but I would contend that this will certainly happen within 10
years at the most.

Once this happens, I predict a gradual reduction in the interest in human
vs. human chess
tournaments. After all, what person is interested in devoting a great deal
of time learning any
skill which can already be performed better by a machine? Think of the
immense amount of time
required to become a skilled chess player, and all the while knowing that no
matter how brilliant
you are, how much you study, how many games you play, etc., you'll never be
able to beat a
machine. What's the point in being known as the "World HUMAN Chess
Champion," a distinction
which will be made by the general public, if not by the chess governing
bodies? Think of a title
match between Kasparov and Kramnik being monitored by this superior chess
machine which
quickly points out the errors made by either side, finds the overlooked
combinations by the
opponents, or announces a forced win. Think about the immediate humiliation
to be suffered
by a player after the match when he/she discovers the overlooked line of
play. Imagine a
spectator sitting there in the audience with his laptop or at home on his PC
and watching the
moves by the players next to the computer's analysis and saying to himself,
"That bonehead
Kasparov missed the best move again!"

Why buy a book written by a chess master when you can purchase a chess
program which provides
superior instruction at fraction of the cost? Ditto for retaining a chess
coach. Ditto for the GM's
putting together a team of fellow GM's as analysts for overnight analysis
during matches. Both
protagonists (probably using the same hardware/software) would simply go
back to their hotels
following adjournment, and input the position into their computer. Assuming
the computer finds
a winning line for one or the other, both players, knowing this, realize
there is absolutely no
reason to continue the game, and the appropriate player simply phones in his
resignation.


  #7  
Old August 22nd 03, 06:57 PM
Nick
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion

"sandirhodes" wrote in message ...
"Nick" wrote in message
And didn't Bobby Fischer say that "money is the root of all evil"? :-)


I don't know what Bobby said. But there is a famous quote (which I'm sure
the reader can look up to find the author) that says "For the love of money
is the root of all evil." This sure gets misquoted a lot.


Thanks for writing. "For the love of money is the root of all evil" comes
from the Bible (King James edition), Timothy 6:10.

"It has been said that money is the root of all evil. The want of money is
so quite as truly."
--Samuel Butler (Erewhon)

Note to Nick: In no way does this imply that either you or Bobby misquoted
anything.


Actually, I was just making a joke, not citing an authentic Fischer quotation.
As I recall, Bobby Fischer complained that most Americans failed to appreciate
chess because there was not enough money involved to attract their interest.

"Money commonly purifies the spirit as wine quenches thirst; and therefore it
is wise to commit all our concerns to the keeping of those who have most of it."
--James Fenimore Cooper (The Monikins)

--Nick
  #8  
Old August 22nd 03, 07:38 PM
Kevin Croxen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion

In article ,
Jeff Stephens wrote:
It is my opinion that the next few years will produce a computer program
w/accompanying hardware
which will be unbeatable by any human opponent at any time limit. I may be
optimistic about the
time limit, but I would contend that this will certainly happen within 10
years at the most.

Once this happens, I predict a gradual reduction in the interest in human
vs. human chess
tournaments. After all, what person is interested in devoting a great deal
of time learning any
skill which can already be performed better by a machine? Think of the


snip

Very, um, "insightful". This logic explains the complete disappearance of
running as a competitive sport, since machines are so much faster, and
weightlifting, since machines are stronger, and .... oh, wait...

In reality, the proficiency of present or future computing machinery will
exert very little effect on the sporting aspect of competitive chess as
any level, save to spark changes in the rules governing competition so
that computing machinery cannot help the competitors while the actual game
is in progress. This has already happened with the elimination of
adjourned sessions. Computing machinery will continue to play an
ever-increasing role in the preparation of competitors prior to a game,
but this does not render the game itself between the two players sans
computers any less competitive a sporting event.

There has been PC software that can kick my butt and yours for a decade
now. It hasn't rendered us any less willing to compete nor rendered the
competition or the winning less enjoyable. It would be ludicrous to
imagine that willingness and enjoyment suddenly changing because the
software could now not only kick our butts, but also Kasparov's &
Kramnik's.
  #9  
Old August 22nd 03, 10:08 PM
Denis
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion

None of these somewhat good reasons will stop chess in my opinion.
You play against anther person with his ideas and understanding. Why
should it matter that much that on the absolute scale ideas even in
GM's games may be inperfect - I think chess players/fans would still
enjoy chess.
Maybe its a bad example, but the creation of a motorcycle did not
affect
Tour de France.

Denis


"Jeff Stephens" wrote in message om...
It is my opinion that the next few years will produce a computer program
w/accompanying hardware
which will be unbeatable by any human opponent at any time limit. I may be
optimistic about the
time limit, but I would contend that this will certainly happen within 10
years at the most.

Once this happens, I predict a gradual reduction in the interest in human
vs. human chess
tournaments. After all, what person is interested in devoting a great deal
of time learning any
skill which can already be performed better by a machine? Think of the
immense amount of time
required to become a skilled chess player, and all the while knowing that no
matter how brilliant
you are, how much you study, how many games you play, etc., you'll never be
able to beat a
machine. What's the point in being known as the "World HUMAN Chess
Champion," a distinction
which will be made by the general public, if not by the chess governing
bodies? Think of a title
match between Kasparov and Kramnik being monitored by this superior chess
machine which
quickly points out the errors made by either side, finds the overlooked
combinations by the
opponents, or announces a forced win. Think about the immediate humiliation
to be suffered
by a player after the match when he/she discovers the overlooked line of
play. Imagine a
spectator sitting there in the audience with his laptop or at home on his PC
and watching the
moves by the players next to the computer's analysis and saying to himself,
"That bonehead
Kasparov missed the best move again!"

Why buy a book written by a chess master when you can purchase a chess
program which provides
superior instruction at fraction of the cost? Ditto for retaining a chess
coach. Ditto for the GM's
putting together a team of fellow GM's as analysts for overnight analysis
during matches. Both
protagonists (probably using the same hardware/software) would simply go
back to their hotels
following adjournment, and input the position into their computer. Assuming
the computer finds
a winning line for one or the other, both players, knowing this, realize
there is absolutely no
reason to continue the game, and the appropriate player simply phones in his
resignation.

  #10  
Old August 22nd 03, 10:19 PM
Jeff Stephens
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default creating the next world champion


Very, um, "insightful". This logic explains the complete disappearance of
running as a competitive sport, since machines are so much faster, and
weightlifting, since machines are stronger, and .... oh, wait...


True, however, computers "have" certainly eliminated certain jobs, tasks,
hobbies, whatever. For example, one purely rote activity was the
calculation of
the value of pi which used to be done by hand in order to try to prove
whether the
number was truely transcendental or had a repetend. Robots in auto
factories have
certainly displaced workers. Of course there are machines that move faster
than
humans, and machines that are stronger, as there are animals such as the
cheetah
and the elephant, but I think there is a greater correlation between all
those neurons
firing while a GM sits at the table across from a machine with its silicon
brain
executing instructions at lightspeed. And I almost forgot the calculator.
Who bothers
to learn how to calculate square roots manually these days.

In reality, the proficiency of present or future computing machinery will
exert very little effect on the sporting aspect of competitive chess as
any level, save to spark changes in the rules governing competition so
that computing machinery cannot help the competitors while the actual game
is in progress. This has already happened with the elimination of
adjourned sessions. Computing machinery will continue to play an
ever-increasing role in the preparation of competitors prior to a game,
but this does not render the game itself between the two players sans
computers any less competitive a sporting event.


I agree. I was only arguing that the ascendancy of the computer will be a
discouraging
influence on those who might otherwise devote a great deal of time to
mastering the game,
and to those who might seek to pursue the game professionally. And I
predict that, ultimately,
this will throw a wet blanket over all of chess.

There has been PC software that can kick my butt and yours for a decade
now. It hasn't rendered us any less willing to compete nor rendered the
competition or the winning less enjoyable.


Well, I suppose there might be a few people who no longer compete with human
opponents
or at least play less often against human opponents
because their computer gives them all the game they can handle. It's one of
our points of
contention as to whether this phenomenon will grow over time.





 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 03:35 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 2.4.0
Copyright 2004-2017 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.