The 19th century had the Evergreen Game between Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufrense which took place in Berlin in 1852. This was supposed to be one of the most notable games of it's 100 year time period.

The 20th century had The Game of the Century between David Byrne and Bobby Fischer at thae Rosenwald Tournament in NYC 10/117/1956.

Will the "Game of the Century" of the 21st Century be between 2 people, a person and a chess engine, or between 2 chess engines? Will it be between 2 computer asstisted humans because "cyberchess" will become the standard way of playing?

I'm pretty sure it's going to be a game played by Yifan Hou

Against a human or a machine? And will she have a chip implanted between her scalp and skull that will help her remember opening variations and calculate tactics?

1. Human

2. No

Now a couple questions for you: Will the game of the century be played in the first half, or last half of the century? Will the game of the century be decisive, or a draw?

Interesting questions. The half of the century in which the game of the century occurs will depend upon the rate of advancement in computer science. You could envision a scenario in which the engines increase in strength exponentially, and we create ground breaking theory based on it in a relatively short period of time. Will this attract more people to the game, or will it create a near total loss of interest?

My feeling is that a Game of the Century would have to be decisive in order to be considered such. But maybe "decisive" could include a new understanding of the game which leads to the conclusion that with best play a draw is the logical and unavoidable outcome.

Computers will probably be used to judge The Game of the Century played by people, but I don't know if people will be judging two computers playing a game. I don't even know if the masters can, or would even care to judge the games of computers for very long.

Now the chip in the brain idea, which could be used to play better chess, is just a fantasy(or nightmare) to me. It stinks like propaganda. I can't imagine a micro-chip, or nano-chip would do anything more than hinder an undamaged brain. Chipping an undamaged brain, could only be used for oppression. In my tiny opinion

The game of the 21st century might -- and should be between two Fischer/Kasparov like titans.  But ultimately, even with avancement in theory with computer technology, it might be a big media blitz event like the Fischer/Spassky 1972 match or similar hype and interest that is the deciding factor.

Chip technology is already being developed to help people who have lost limbs or have neuromuscular diseaases. I saw a guy with Lou Gehrig's disease on TV moving a computer cursor with only his mind. They also showed a monkey eating a bananna using a mechanical arm controlled only withe his mind. This technology is in it's infancy, and using it for mental activities like chess doesn't seem like it would be too difficult, you know, if a monkey can move a mechanical arm!

What kind of sci-fi have you been watching?

Well that's how you feel about it. I don't feel any excitement about it. But then again, I don't trust the 5 minute segments of micro-chip technology shown on TV. I believe entirely, that major funding will continue to come for a military use of that technology. Again, I think that micro-chipping an undamaged brain can only hinder it. And I just hate hearing about animal experiments.

What do you mean?

I mean that the idea of microchip implants controlling someone's actions seems like a very sci-fi idea and not something that can realistically happen.

I agree. I was referencing post #5.

It's happening. The intention is to use it for sick and injured people. There's no guaranteeing how it will ultimately be used, of course.

You live in a much happier world than I do, EP. Since I doubt very much that micro-chip technology would be intended for the sick and injured. Now, I can see how such technology would be advertised as being philanthropic, but that doesn't really make a whole lotta' sense considering the vast amounts of people around the world dying from curable maladies like typhus, cholera, malaria, dysentary, etc.

If the military was going to develop something to use in this way, do you think we'd know about it? As far as curable diseases being eradicated before moving on to other maladies, I'd be willing to bet that there are cancer survivors who are glad that medical research doesn't work that way.

I don't think micro-chip implant technology is much beyond what we do know about it, which is to store information. Substituting anything from identification cards to dog tags. I don't know how open the military would be with more advanced uses, it would depend on the conditioning of the public beforehand. The American people, for instance, are pretty apathetic and maleable.

I don't know if I made myself clear about how things are advertised. I wasn't saying stop looking for things that may help the sick and injured, I was saying I don't trust those who try to tug at my sentiments, by advertising new technology as helpful, without giving me the whole truth of the matter. It's only reasonable to believe nothing coming from TV. I mean, I can see now. I actually have learned. I don't just forget everything so I can remain comfortably stupid my whole life. If I see it on TV, I now automatically know I'm looking at some kind of spin, some type of deception, someone is selling something. So no, I don't believe the "intent" is philanthropic.

Actually, we are already carrying these 'implants' with us when we carry our cellphones. It's just a matter of time before they glue them into our brains.

In South Africa now, you cannot have an unregistered SIM card, contract or prepaid. They know where you are and who you talk to.

By the end of this century, we will hopefully solve chess so that black and white can force a draw.