Computers allowed in chess tournaments?

Kasparov, at least at one time, championed the idea of using computers in tournament/match play. I never appreciated the rationale. The idea, at least at high levels, is to rid the player of some of the donkey work of computing variations and doing blunder checks so he can spend more time on the other parts of the game.

*Shrug*

Computing variations is part of the game. A person should take responsibility for every aspect of his/her own game. Then again, I think professional golfers should carry their own golf bags, race car divers should change their own tires, politicians should write their own speeches and musicians should never lip-synch.

 

If some folks wanna have a computer-assisted tournament, then it should be a separate thing with its own ratings.

I agree with Batgirl's last statement; if a tournament did allow analysis boards, any rating resulting would need to be dissallowed from 'normal' chess ranking.  Because one would expect players would play above their level with the electronic assist, they would have an inherent advantage over all other players in all other tounaments without them.  After all, it wouldn't be very fair to claim someone set a swimming record in the 100m front crawl if they were wearing swim fins, would it?  (Not that I know enough about swimming to know if that would even help, but you get the idea.)

 

I guess that's the main difference between my argument about the calculator in the math exam and chess; one is competitive and weighted against all participants worldwide, and the other is only weighted within a small controlled population.  Still, if it were clearly designed to be a separate event, it might have appeal to certain players over the original.  After all, the only real human race is a foot race or a swimming race without assistance.  Still, auto racing, boat racing, and a score of other '-assisted' races are incredibly popular because they add elements not seen in races where the unassisted human being alone is involved.

They have championships where you program a chess computer and play it to see who has the best chess computer. One was held in Sweden IIRC.

 

Just an interresting note.

No calculators in Chess.

This isn't an exam, or a Problem that needs to be solved to acheive an end - the problem solving IS the end in itself. The mental Gymnastics is what Chess IS.

 

Oh, and Computers can only think like Humans when they can reprogram the way they themselves 'Think' according to the situation to the practically unlimited degree that we players can.

Well, some of YOu players anyway, I'm a bit slow :)

Call it the poker player in me, but until they make a computer that I can read it's body language (in poker it is called a tell) I will prefer to play people. All people have a tell. And when you can read their tell, you have an advantage.

avdel wrote: Humans do not think like computers, and computers do not think like humans. Not so, computers are programed by humans, so they will think like a human, humans make mistakes, so do computers!....

---

Now that's funny!!

batgirl wrote:

Kaparov, at least at one time, championed the idea of using computers in tournament/match play. I never appreciated the rationale. The idea, at least at high levels, is to rid the player of some of the donkey work of computing variations and doing blunder checks so he can spend more time on the other parts of the game.

*Shrug*

Computing variations is part of the game. A person should take responsibility for every aspect of his/her own game. Then again, I think professional golfers should carry their own golf bags, race car divers should change their own tires, politicians should write their own speeches and musicians should never lip-synch.

 

If some folks wanna have a computer-assisted tournament, then it should be a separate thing with its own ratings.

---

I'm sure he did when he allowed Saitek to use his name to flog chess computers.

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.

---

Sure - computers should be allowed to play with people (perhaps that should be the otherway around).

 

I certainly wouldn't consider entering such a tournament - I get my ass kicked enough here as it is! 

 

No one would be 'forced' to enter a tournament where thay have to play a computer.  If such a touney was organised, I don't think it would be well enough attended to merit a re-run the following year.

"Batgirl's observations regarding the use of computers in chess touches on what I think is the central matter at hand: the psychology of the chess game."

 

Conversely, ThreeQueens echoes my oft-shouted assertation that computers do not, in fact, play chess. Computers number-crunch. They win chess games for sure, but they don't play chess. Chess involves so much more than calculating variations. If it didn't, I wouldn't ever play another game. It's those things beyond calculating that gives chess its appeal. Chess is a fight and can also be an art. Computers have no human emotions, no human frailities, no human spirit of adventure. Computers don't create ideas or plans. Computers don't interact with their opponents. Computers don't laugh when they win nor cry when they lose. They have no honor, no courage and no compassion. Computers aren't sneaky, sly or cunning. Chess involves all those things in time and measure and all those things, in turn, conspire together to make a game of chess a thing worth playing.

avdel wrote: Humans do not think like computers, and computers do not think like humans. Not so, computers are programed by humans, so they will think like a human.

---

If the above statement were true, then true artificial intelligence would have been achieved years ago. If you consult any textbook on AI research, you'll find we are not overwhelmingly closer to the goal than we were back in 1935 when the research field properly emerged.

 

 KEEP them out of tourn.with human players I would refuse to play in any tourn they were in and if it ever became legal to use them in tourn for any reason, to speed up your own analysis or any other reason that would be the end of OTB tourn for me and i'm sure for lots of other people as well.

I programmed a chess game back in college, using Delphi.  I still have the program so if anyone wants it, drop me a note :)  It's not very good, as it only looks two moves ahead with every piece (at the hardest level), and has been beaten against every other chess program I pitted it against :P  On the plus side it did beat my old high-school buddy James, so that made me feel better!

 I wouldn't want to play against a computer in a tournament.  I wouldn't be playing the *computer* really, but a team of programmers, which is different.  However, it is fun watching my creation, programmed by only me, take on (and consistently lose) against other chess programs (which are programmed by teams).  For me the fun is not playing a chess program, but writing a chess program that can play.  When I offered to let one of my professors play, he told me that would be no fun, but that programming his own chess program and pitting it against mine would be a blast.

 Alas, he never found the time :)

Computers dont really "play" chess, they calculate, like batgirl said. They are not creative, it is just input output, input a move, output a reply. Computers don't think, they just process information a lot faster, but they won't do anything without human input/command. When "singularity" occurs though...

The idea that computers don't actually play chess is idiotic. They understand the rules of chess, they choose moves, and they attempt to win. That's playing chess. True, computers play chess in a very strange way, and their thought processes (if you can call them that) are almost incomprehensible to people, but it doesn't change the fact that they are participating in the same activity. Refering to the earlier metaphor, even though cars move differently than humans, it's still true that cars "race" just as much as humans do.

That being said, I don't think computers should be allowed in tournaments, or at least not all tournaments. There's no question, computers are better. If computers were allowed in all tournaments, then computers would win every torunament, humans would stop playing, and chess would become a game for computers only. (Imagine if cars were allowed in marathons. No one would bother to race on foot, it would just be car racing.) I think we can all agree that isn't what we want.

I do think that there should be tournaments that allow computers though. It'd be intereting to me to see which computers are the strongest, to watch newly programmed computers defeat old computer champions, etc. In some ways, computers should be respected (since they are playing better chess), and I think it would be beneficial to observe and analyze the games between them.

This is especially true because we don't have much time to watch this. In 100 years, computers will only play one game: that perfect game of chess where both players play the best move, every move, and the game ends in a draw.

"The idea that computers don't actually play chess is idiotic."

 

Thanks for calling me an idiot.

I'm glad to learn that your opinion is omnipotent, particularly when expressed within your own particular definitions and parameters.

 

 

batgirl wrote:

"The idea that computers don't actually play chess is idiotic."

 

Thanks for calling me an idiot.

I'm glad to learn that your opinion is omnipotent, particularly when expressed within your own particular definitions and parameters.

 

---

I don't think that people should take offense to this argument, no matter what your views on "do computers actually play chess".  It is true that computers beat the reigning world champ at the game, but computers had and have reams of opening material downloaded into them.  Of course they have endings and middle game positions put into them as well.  Do they actually "think" or not.  I don't really understand the nuts and bolts of the argument enough to take one side or the other.  But I will offer this opinion.  Take the strongest chess program or stand-alone on the planet...strip it of its opening book, and lets see if it can still routinely beat grandmasters of any caliber, let alone a world champion.

batgirl wrote:

Thanks for calling me an idiot.

I'm glad to learn that your opinion is omnipotent, particularly when expressed within your own particular definitions and parameters. 

---

 I don't think I said you were an idiot, and I don't think I said my opinion is omnipotent either...

I said that one of your statements was idiotic (often smart people say stupid things, I know I do), and then I gave specific reasons why I believe it.

God, people are so touchy.

"But I will offer this opinion.  Take the strongest chess program or stand-alone on the planet...strip it of its opening book, and lets see if it can still routinely beat grandmasters of any caliber, let alone a world champion."

I don't really think that's being fair to a computer. They do have a wealth of chess informtion stored inside of them, but everything that plays chess does that. If we delete all of the opening information from the computer, does that mean we get to hit the GM over the head until he forgets what the Sicilian defence is?

I'm sorry. Maybe it's because I've never had one of my arguments proven idiotic via anthropomorphism.

I will be truly impressed by computers when they can make people. Until then I will always be more impressed with people since they make the computers. Nuff said