On computers

"If machines replace achievement, then to what will people aspire [to]? And who are we, truly, without such goals?"

-Drizzt Do'Urden (Streams of Silver, The Icewind Dale Trilogy)

This is an interesting thought. In the book it pertained more to sword fighting and the introduction of fire arms. However, I was trying to reason if this is applicable to man vs. the chess computer.

There is still achievement in chess. I myself have had such achievements. I do not use chess engines directly, but by reviewing grandmaster games and reading certain chess books I do indirectly benefit from chess engine analysis. Despite this, the achievements still have felt real and deserved.

"The inventions of the Priests of Gond will make all equal! We will lift up the lowly peasant!"

-The Gondsman (Streams of Silver, The Icewind Dale Trilogy)

After combining these two quotes (in Streams of Silver Drizzt and the Gondsman were discussing the topics of man vs. machine, science, and aspiration) I wonder if the chess engine has the ability to make all chess players equal. Certainly, it still takes hard work to become a good chess player with a chess engine. It is a tool more than anything, but could it be that it is something more than that? Perhaps it symbolizes something about humanity. However, different people do have different chess abilities, so we can reason, at least for now, that the chess engine has not made all chess players equal and there is, thus, still more to be achieved individually.

Every kitchen has a food processor - but every home doesn't have a cook.

Great Quote Art! Bravo Sir Bravo!!

I've never taken advice from a chess engine - and the list of move options that PerfectGent posted makes my head spin! It's not only the final choice that has to come from your brain - but also quite a bit of understanding what the different paths signify.

All technology, especially those bits aimed at the masses, is easy to use but hard to master. Satellite navigation is a case in point. Even the basic devices have tons of features: e.g. get yourself out a jam; drive via an intermediate point - that the average user can manage perfectly well without. For me, SatNav is making journeys fun that used to be a nightmare. No doubt my navigational skills have got worse since I started using it - but I will now cheerfully undertake any car journey anywhere. The latest satnavs for kids even maintain a running commentary of interesting landmarks - and tells them every two minutes that "we're not there yet".

There's been discussion on chess.com about a tighter integration between the standard game board and tools like the Analysis Board, Conditional Moves and Game Explorer. Throw in a commentary as well, (e.g. "Tal used this opening in the 1960 World Championship"; "The Halloween Gambit, is an aggressive but dubious gambit in chess, in which White sacrifices a knight for just one pawn.") and you would end up with a more vibrant chess-playing experience.

Whether the level of skill would go up is another matter.

To me, what is interesting is not if computers can replace human beings at chess, but wether they could in principle. Being a computable activity in principle (solvable, decidable, whatever, I'm not an expert in computing theory!), means that it is tractable by computers in general. If you think what is specific to the human mind goes beyond computability, then, yes, in a way it does bother me that in some sense chess isn't a thing that makes us that special as human beings.

But it's only in a sense, 'cause our way of approaching chess is very different from the computer and very different between us and there's a whole aesthetic dimension that adds up.

Just some random thoughts!