How would Mikhail Tal fare against today's computers?

Tal changed style long before there were any strong computers, he played a more conservative chess in 1979 than he did in 1959. Anyway modern top engines are much too strong for human players. Kramnik didn't have a chance in 2006, and in 2012 the engines are many hundred Elo stronger.

Gee, you don't think he can hear us, do you?

Seems to have confused you more than anything.

Nope it didnt. But for sure when it comes to historical chess backgrounds and chess tidbits in my vocabulary now, youre the go-to guy. Keep it up.

Tal would win every game.

No horizon effect could withstand his tactics.

Have you ever considered a career in comedy?

Sorry, today's best software, with all features enabled and running on only $1000 hardware would beat any single human EVER.  No contest.   It's not even very meaningful to compare engine ratings to humans anymore, computers are literally in a league of their own.

Specialized machine-only Elo pools have been created for rating machines, but such numbers, while similar in appearance, should not be directly compared

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_chess#Computers_versus_humans 

This argument of human vs computer was proved many years ago, when computers were not even a fraction of their power today.  

They are also getting more powerful all the time.  The singularity is coming!  

A modern day Paul Revere here.

Some very intelligent people take this very seriously:

http://singularity.org/

Yes i agree that some poeple takes this seriously. As some people who beleived in Doomsday 2012 does.

I don't understand why everyone says that computers will be the death of chess, I and certainly majority of chess players including the world champions don't have the memorization to play all the "draw lines".  A game would go like 1 e4 c5 and black says yes i draw by force if you play Nf3 and 30 moves later but if white goes 2. a3 or d4 or g3 or b3 or h3 or w/e it changes the game to where the human would have to memorize another computer drawn line just to much for one human.  Chess will not die out simply humans don't have the memorization for such a feat.  

Maybe for top elite players, chess will die soon. Brilliancy is gone. But not for us the cute ever blunderring honchos and senyoritas of chess amateur world. Chess will live on. And as long as we keep buying the books they sold like "Winning with this and winning with that" our faith will never die.As long as we keep missing mates in 2 or giving away a queen for free like a gift to our opponents chess lives on.

Oh please, what a horrible comparison.  Do some research:

http://singularity.org/singularity-faq/

If you have ever read How Computers Play Chess by Levy and Newborn, there were plenty of skeptics about computers ever being able to beat good chess players, then be Masters, or GMs, then beat the World Champion, etc, That is a much better comparison than pseudoscience nonsense.

At least keep it real.  The "specialized domains" mentioned below will only expand.  This was written in the early 90s
 http://books.google.com/books/about/How_Computers_Play_Chess.html?id=61_lPgAACAAJ

It now appears possible - even likely - that within a few decades and within certain specialized domains, the computer will be more intelligent than we ourselves. What was unimaginable a few years ago is happening today with alarming rapidity. A small piece of silicon, no larger than a thumbnail, can exhibit more "intelligence" than the best human brains. This book attempts to satisfy two different goals. It presents a comprehensive history of computer chess along with many rare examples of the play of early programs. These examples contain both amazing strokes of brilliance and inexplicable catastrophes; they will give the reader a dear perspective of the pioneer days of computer chess. In contrast, contemporary programs are capable of defeating International Grandmasters; the text contains several recent examples including a remarkable victory over former World Champion Anatoly Karpov. The remainder of the book is devoted to an explanation of how the various parts of a chess program are designed and how they function. Readers who have no knowledge of computers will gain insight into how they "think." Readers who own a personal computer and who want to write their own chess programs will find sufficient information in this book to enable them to make a good start.

JoseO, much of what you say is true.  "Intelligence" is a misleading term. But computers can learn, there are already plenty of examples of software that can evolve.  In fact, this is the entire concept behind many singularity scenarios, self-improving machines.  Eventually the humans are left out of the loop in technological improvement, and lose control.  For better or worse.

A machine intelligence would be defined as:

Intelligence measures an agent’s ability to achieve goals in a wide range of environments.

As Edsger Dijkstra once said, the question of whether a machine can ‘really’ think is “no more interesting than the question of whether a submarine can swim.”

http://singularity.org/singularity-faq/#HowIsIntelligenceDefined

Machines are already smarter than humans are at many specific tasks: performing calculations, playing chess, searching large databanks, detecting underwater mines, and more.^[15] But one thing that makes humans special is their generalintelligence. Humans can intelligently adapt to radically new problems in the urban jungle or outer space for which evolution could not have prepared them. Humans can solve problems for which their brain hardware and software was never trained. Humans can even examine the processes that produce their own intelligence (cognitive neuroscience), and design new kinds of intelligence never seen before (artificial intelligence).

To possess greater-than-human intelligence, a machine must be able to achieve goals more effectively than humans can, in a wider range of environments than humans can. This kind of intelligence involves the capacity not just to do science and play chess, but also to manipulate the social environment.

I think machines will soon have the ability to learn more abstract stuff too, like emotion, personality or culture.

And one day, when Nibiru hits, or yellowstone explodes, or the human race self destructs, a mechanical civilization will remain, learning, improving, exploring, maybe even playing chess.

Both are based on research and are both scientific. Get the point?

And to answer the question of the thread. Tal will be beaten by the computers.

So, yeah the computer can be programmed to be smarter and a better chess player than any human.  Think of it as a chess "cyborg" if you will.  Like the "Terminator" with superhuman chess skills.  Not only can he crush a grandmaster over the board, but not hesistate to blow him away if so programmed.

Indeed, in the same manner that Usain Bolt would be beaten by a modern automobile.  Case closed, later.