The Death of Chess?
In a recent article Dr. Ray Kurzweil, the inventor of optical character recognition used in flat bed scanners amongst other things, has suggested that once computers get better than humans at chess, we will lose interest in this venerable game. “Deep Fritz-like chess programs running on ordinary personal computers will routinely defeat all humans later in this decade. Then we'll really lose interest in chess.” This article was written after a match between world champion Vladimir Kramnik and Deep Fritz, programmed by Frans Morsch of Germany. The eight game match was tied 4-4. Gary Kasparov, who has the highest rating in the world, is currently playing Deep Junior. “Deep” in these names refers to the use of more than one processor in parallel. After 5 games at the time of writing the match is tied 2.5-2.5. There is only one game left and Kasparov will have black. It is likely that this match will be a tie or that the computer will win. If Deep Junior wins this match, should we lose interest in chess?
I think it is a strange attitude Dr. Kurzweil has here about the relation of computers and humans in chess. I have no doubt his prediction that desktop computers will regularly beat the best humans within a short amount of time is true. But why should this cause us to lose interest in the game of chess. The fact that Kasparov can beat me every time in a game of chess doesn't mean that I should lose interest in the game. The same applies to the situation between computers and humans. We don't lose interest in the 100 yard dash because an automobile can defeat the fastest humans every time. I think it is a tribute to the human mind that we have held out against computers this long. The only thing we might lose interest in is computer v human competitions. Human v human competition in chess will always be interesting regardless of how strong computers get.
digg
del.icio.us
reddit
Newsvine
FaceBook
Stumble Upon
Comments
"The same applies to the situation between computers and humans. We don't lose interest in the 100 yard dash because an automobile can defeat the fastest humans every time."
Up until I read that line, I was thinking something very similar. I think it's strange to assume that people would lose interest in human competition simply because machines are better at it. Especially chess, which is almost magical to watch when you look at the strategy that some of the better players employ. I'm no expert, but I know when I'm watching a great player versus when I'm watching someone who's merely good.
I'd rather watch two mediocre humans than 2 amazing computers.
But that's just me :-)
Posted by: Vinny | February 6, 2003 6:34 PM
I couldn't agree with you more Vinny.
There is no joy in watching "intelligent" computers beat humans - a sense of awe at the engineering accomplishent, yes, but joy now. Whereas watching two humans compete awakens the something, perhaps the primeval hunter, in all of us.
Nevertheless once computers reach that point where a program on your laptop will be able to beat the best human player we will still use computer chess programs to train on, to try out new strategies. I can forsee programs that will have "govermors" built into them. That is you can set the level of intelligence for nthe program so that you have a chance at beating it.
Posted by: The Dynamic Driveler | February 6, 2003 11:16 PM
Another consequence that is surely unthought of is that the better computers get, the better the general chess population will get. As readily available opponents who are more challenging than ever emerge, the computer opponent that can beat you readily will become a heck of a teacher, and probably raise the level of the "average" chess player much higher.
I thought of another example to disprove Kurzweil:
Machines make nice furniture, but when people clamor for a piece of furniture, it's usually a piece that is handmade...
Posted by: Vinny | February 7, 2003 6:37 AM
I think watching 2 amazing computers duke it out is interesting. I personally take pleasure in watching my fritz 7 get beat, largely because I lose to it every single time for about 200 games in a row now.(Stalemated it 2 times tho!)
Posted by: BobbyFishing | August 20, 2003 1:14 AM