Chess is Meaningless Ever Since Kasparov's loss to a Chess Computer

So" meaning "in chess,as defined  by you, is being able to defeat a computer?Ok,thats how you define "meaning" in chess.How do you define "meaning"?

Olympic weightlifting is meaningless, because a fork lift truck would probably win.

Do I get an answer to my post #10?

Nice pic,McHeath,even better analogy...I suppose,once the IOC comes to their sense,that Olympic event will be dropped.

Permit me to disagree.

Remember, humans created the computer, just as humans created the car. I still love to run, even though I can not keep up with a car.  I still love to play chess, even though I can not routinely beat a really good computer program.  

I feel a chess computer is nothing more than a library of the past ideas and contributions of humans.  Long before computers, a good player with a library of chess games and theory could probably beat a GM without them.  At least that is how I think of it.  

And who is to say some chess wiz, thinking way outside the box, won't someday come up with a whole new strategy that will crush today's best computer?  

Actually, humans can beat chess playing computers,if the match includes enough games. A familar pattern emerges in these contests;the computers win the early games and humans win the latter.That,however, is utterly beside the point of this thread,which seems to utimately revolve around the idea of what is "meaningful". Mystoff and McHeath on onto something.

I agree. Why run marathons when we can cover the same distance with a car on cruise control in a fraction of the time? Makes no sense...

No!!!

Even if engines are tremendous calculators, they are not, they will never become thinkers or poets, they will never feel the game, improvise or invent anything... One can never call an engine a "champion", it's just inadequate...

I do not think you understand chess engines. They would be very strong without the "library"  And nobody is going to come up with a whole new chess strategy that will crush today's best computer.

The reason they are good is that they can "see"  and evaluate thousands of moves per second. A human can never do this.

The best humans chess players will continue to beat the best chess engines for the foreseeable future because,although no human can hope to compete with a chess engine tactically,they can strategically because engines don't think,they play according to an algorithm.If given enough games to play,the human player can calculate the algorithms response to a speculative sacrifice,it is the one area that no chess engine handles better than a human.So what happens when the best engine and human player compete at chess is,if a large enough number of games are played,the engine wins all the early games,the middle games are largely drawn,then the human starts winning the latter games.Of course,once true AI is developed( or better algorithms) no human will be able compete with chess engines.

Proof?

Todays computers are really only able to train humans to a greater level. Maybe, in the future, a quantum computer will get unbeatable, but it will still need to get 'human' AI developed to call it 'Champion'.

Well, I asked "who is to say" and now I have the answer!  I stand corrected, and with a better understanding of the infallibility of chess engines.  Thank you!