As the machines improve over time, won't the human element become less and less significant? A proper game of chess would be between two machines and any human interference would drag the game back into the woodpusher zone that us grandmasters are so familiar with. In all seriousness, when the machines are that good, no human has anything to add and very few could claim to understand a megachessgame.
I don't embrace the machine age!
The point about Advanced Chess is that human players can still devise strategic plans and aim for long-term goals much better than engines can.
Whether engines will eventually become strategically very strong, I don't know. If that does happen, then human players will be completely redundant!
Well that just seems too boring. Why would I want to practice some technique in painting when I can just take a picture and get the image perfect?
Why would a class player continue to play when a GM plays so much better? People don't play because it's perfect, they play because of the dynamic struggle between eachother. So to talk about dragging it down is silly when the motivation isn't perfection.
Also, this is why I don't think cyborg chess is the future of chess. Chess, again, is interesting because it's a game between two people. Right now it may be a shock to us that computers can find better moves, but in the future after we get over it, it'll be back to playing as usual.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_chess
It may as well be, as all top players now make use of engines and huge databases to aid their play. This is just one step further down that path.
It combines the best the computer can offer with the best the human player can offer. Assuming both human players are using identical hardware and software, the player who makes the best strategic plans/decisions based on the engine's concrete brute-force analysis will win.