Computers allowed in chess tournaments?
Sort:
Feb 10, 2008
0
#62
Having read the prior scripted positions, it seems to me that Batgirl's is both cogent and eloquent. Thanks.
My goodness. This discussion/debate between Janus and Batgirl is certainly interesting. However, I believe Batgirl is correct.
Janus, I am sorry to burst your bubble, but computers do not play chess. Computers calculate numbers, and that's it. Knowing is not something computers are capable of achieving. They don't see Bishops, knights or pawns. They only see numbers. They calculate numbers based on how programmers explain to the computer how to compute them (thus why they are called computers). We see this as a Bishop moving from c1 to g5, but the computer only sees that a numbered sequence is better off on another numbered location based on a mathematical grid.
(Technical Stuff) Actually, in the world of game programming what we call chess pieces are objects created in the computer realm. For the objects to move the computer must know the pixel limitations of the object, and the computer generated world it resides, X and Y coordinates to programmers. The programmer then uses algorithms (math) to allow the computer to compute movement from one XY coordinate to another XY coordinate.
I am also not aware of any scientific proof that humans calculate everything numerically. i.e. emotions. From what I understand the human brain is still vastly a mystery to scientists, but if you can provide the documentation of the human capacity to break everything down via numbers, then I will certainly read it. Until then I prefer to challenge this assumption.
Computers appear smart, but when you break them down to what they are...processors, they are nothing more than advanced calculators. They don't even know the difference between a circle or a square let alone a chess game. They simply place colored pixels in certain locations on a screen until enough pixels are bunched together so that humans can discern an image.
The modern version of the Princess Bride, battle of wits.
Sicilian: So, it is down to you, and it is down to me...If you wish her dead, by all means keep moving forward.
Wesley: Let me explain
Sicilian: There's nothing to explain, you are trying to kidnap what I have rightfully stolen.
Wesley: Perhaps, an arrangement can be reached?
Sicilian: There will be no arrangement, and you're killing her.
Wesley: Well if there can be no arrangement, then we are at an impasse.
Sicilian: I'm afraid so, I can't compete with you physically, and you're no match for my brains.
Wesley: You're that smart?
Sicilian: Let me put it this way, have you ever Plato, Aristotle, Socrates, <Kasparov, Deep Blue>.
Wesley: Yes.
Sicilian: Morons.
Wesley: Really? In that case I challenge you to a battle of wits.
Sicilian: For the Princess? To the Death? I accept.
Wesley: Good, then pour the wine.
And the rest is history
Is there any measurable difference between a being who can play, and a being who can only "compose" games?
Earlengray wrote:
I agree with Creg. Computers don't "know" or "understand" chess. Algorithams used are based on ability to calculate many operations fast and in the end computer doesn't see the position but get a number: positive = better for White, negative = better for Black. Computer doesn't know that he plays chess, the material that he is processing doesn't have a meaning for "him", it can be chess game, or anything else, "he" doesn't see the difference. As a student of computing science I can say you one thing -computers are pretty stupid, all they "see" is 0 or 1.
and for the question asked, I don't see the point of computers playing in tournament, they are not chess players. we could then also proclaim that deep blue is a real world champion.
Depending on how the program is written, computers are likely to calculate their moves much the same way people do (logically), except that intuition, will, mood or spirit play no part in the decision based on that calculation. That is what makes chess beautiful, the art of the logic, not just the logic in itself.
For there to be any point in a computer playing in a 'normal' tournament, it would have to have the desire to play, would have to be able to appreciate the beauty of brilliance and so strive to produce it. Now I won't say that computers don't have these things, just that until they want to play, we shouldn't include them in people chess as tool or player.
Computers belong in their own tournaments, where these human qualities which aren't apparent in the machines themselves (though again I refuse to say they don't have them) are provided by the programmers, whose art is no less beautiful.
NEVER!!
itaibn wrote:
Obviously, neither are you intelligent enough to comprehend the idea of questions with no right answers, and depend on opinion.
You've got me there, if a question has no right answer what other position am I supposed to take other than to hold an opinion and respect the opinion of others?
Also, are you saying that part of being a chessplayer is thinking that computers can't?
Absolutely not. I'm saying that a computer doesn't care whether it plays chess or not, it has no desire to play chess because it has no desire. It therefore doesn't meet my own definition of being a chessplayer. It may meet other peoples definitions of a chessplayer and I respect that, but not mine.
What is the difference between understanding what a rainbow is, looking at it, and knowing that what you're looking at is a rainbow, and seeing a rainbow. If can explain to me the difference, then we'd have more to discuss.
To a human, a rainbow is not just the result of light being refracted and reflected by raindrops. It exists beyond it's physical explanation, in thought, in art, in literature, in music and in the emotions of those who see it and find within it hope or beauty. This is all part of the rainbow, just as real as the image in the sky and beyond the experience of a computer.
For me, Chess is the same, existing profoundly beyond the algorithms of a computer, however sophisticated and beautiful (and successful!) those algorithms may be in their own right. Without humans to take pleasure and pain in it's bewitching secrets, it becomes nothing more than a cold logical puzzle, in fact probably not a puzzle at all. What a tragedy that would be.
Creg wrote:
Playing a computer (silicon) opponent in a tournament is ludacrous. Would you run a race versus a car? How about a horse? This oddity of allowing computers to play against humans is as absurd as either of the aforementioned questions.
As a computer programmer I am impressed to see silicon advance, and do what it does in our society as a whole (not just chess that is). However, the computing speed of modern systems makes it pointless to play against them at all. Humans do not think like computers, and computers do not think like humans. Similar to how both cars and horses are different than man.
Let them play one vs. one against a GM or against other silicon opponents to further science, or computer technology, but keep them out of main stream tournaments where humans compete against each other. Once again, you see auto races face off against other cars, and horse races against other horses, but you don't see man running along side of either...do you?
i agree with this guy its just stupid
Competing against a human is a fair game. Competing against a human that uses a computor is not fair.It's cheating
how about having two tournaments side by side, one human (with a normal purse) and one computer (with a small purse for the programmers/owner), then have the champs play with a bonus purse, split like 50-50 (human-comp) or 40-60 for a comp win an 70-30 or something if human wins.
Reb wrote:
Do you think computers should be allowed to play in chess tournaments with people? Would you play in such events yourself? My own opinion is that they shouldnt be allowed and I would not play in any tournament that allows them to play.
No I wouldn't play in them even if the Tournaments were free there's no sport in allowing them either in Postal Chess or in OTB.
How would Players who don't use them feel if People who don't even know the basic rules of how the pieces move show up at OTB tournaments with their engines and clean up effortlessly? come on you know.
you lack that capacity?