That ship has sailed. The question is now, when will the average toaster be able to beat all humans at chess.
Will a computer ever be able to beat all humans?
Sort:
Well, I recently won against my toaster three out of five games, but, that was right after breakfast.
I'm not sure what this questions means. In relation to chess - a powerful computer chess engine is almost certainly able to beat the strongest chess players now days.
not sure
Welcome back, davidacrompton! How was your cryonic experience?
The OP clearly means the collective genious of all humans that have ever existed, currently exist, and will exist. Duh!
Resistance is futile, Houdini!
The OP didn't state "chess" in the title or body of his post, so I think he means beat all humans in a real fight. At this point though, computers still aren't smart enough to get out of the way of a baseball bat (to say nothing of a gun or hand grenade), so nothing to worry about for now.
hal
hal
hal
Of course we will be able to!
We already have
Never, if you are a believer, you'll understand why. Afanasy Nikitin, a russian merchant of XVth century, who was the first Russian who met chess when being in India, took a chess victory having only knowledge of moves and nothing more, because he betted on lifes of his friends who were captured by an Indian ruler. Friends have been rescued by this victory. How do you think Who prompted him moves that he had to make, taking into account that he had completely no chess (or shatranj) skill? I think the same Person can help a chess player believing in Him to win any computer if He finds it necessary. I took some victories by the same way, but I lost much more games... not because I am a poor player, but because I am a poor believer.
joeschmo123 wrote:
look up the singularity movement. they feel that with the progression of computers at the rate that there going by 2015 they will have computer smarter than rat.by 2025 they will have computer smarter than average human and by 2050 there will be a computer smarter than the collective of humans on earth. bold statements but with the progression of computers at their rate it is highly posssible.
Computers will never be 'smart'. They will do exactly what humans program them to do.
+1
I must add that Kasparov couldn't win the most powerful computer of his time, but he was not a believer!
I suggest you another question, " When a microwave will be able to cook without help of any human? " Who will buy food and put it inside? 
Who was the first person who developped researches in computer chess in USSR? He was Mikhail Botvinnik himself! To write chess programs you must have strong chess skills. So Scottrf +1
joeschmo123 wrote:
look up the singularity movement. they feel that with the progression of computers at the rate that there going by 2015 they will have computer smarter than rat.by 2025 they will have computer smarter than average human and by 2050 there will be a computer smarter than the collective of humans on earth. bold statements but with the progression of computers at their rate it is highly posssible.
If they get to a rat's level of intelligence I don't think it will take another 25 years to reach ours.
But conceptually, I still don't understand what intelligence and consciousness are, let alone how to implement them in a computer. The media and private businesses bandy those words around but I've seen no evidence of them in any machine.
Scottrf wrote:
joeschmo123 wrote:
look up the singularity movement. they feel that with the progression of computers at the rate that there going by 2015 they will have computer smarter than rat.by 2025 they will have computer smarter than average human and by 2050 there will be a computer smarter than the collective of humans on earth. bold statements but with the progression of computers at their rate it is highly posssible.
Computers will never be 'smart'. They will do exactly what humans program them to do.
I think (if I understand what I just read on wikipedia) these singularity people believe that some computers will think just like we do, presumably using neutal-nets or something similar. Then you just add loads of processing power until you have a super-intelligent sentient being. Maybe such a thing could understand chess as we do, and maybe even beat the engines.
Can't see it happening by 2050 though. More like 3050.
Look at Carlsen. He is playing pretty much every position that still has some chances (even though he might be worse). And look how successful he is. This is not easy. On the other hand Fischer once said he believes in good moves not in psychology. Unfortunatelly humans think about so many things at the same time. Wrong moves, mistakes and so on. This sometimes takes away the ability to find the best move. But we are humans, thats alright. And a computer will never understand what it feels like to win after four hours of playing. Or what it feels like after losing a position although you might have been better. And this makes human playing more ... beautiful. A computer may be stronger. But its games have no soul.
dubina333 wrote:
I must add that Kasparov couldn't win the most powerful computer of his time, but he was not a believer!
He beat the IBM computer the first match. The second match the computer beat him by one game and Kasparov didn't come prepared like he had when he was defending his title against Karpov for example. IBM refused a rematch after the second match which tells you everything, they knew Kasparov would probably beat their computer in a thid match with Kasparov now coming into it like a title match. There is a documentary about that match.
Anyway I think a super computer today would be able to beat any human in a chess match. :)
Anyhow, this defeat greatly influenced Kasparov, he looked like choosing politics and quite leaving chess just by reason of it. I read his interview where he commented this defeat as impossible just because the computer was not able to win a world champion, and he even suspected IBM in cheating and playing a vote game by some GMs instead of playing by a program.
I think not, or not for a long time.