Regarding the future of chess(mainly computer chess)

Does anyone find it disturbing how strong computers have gotten? There has never been a human player that has beaten Rybka 4 in a match even WITH odds of move and pawn. What is the point of dedicating your life to the sport if there will always be a looming, silicone god that calculates 15 moves more than you do, has divine positional understanding, and has a database of millions of memorized grandmaster games? Now, I am expecting some to say, well, what about track runners? Aren't cars always going to be faster than track runners in a race? Yes. This and many other analogies may be true but a car and a human are certainly different in terms of anatomy. The way a human moves around the track (running, through the use of muscle contractions) is totally different than that of a car (wheels, using torque from an engine). Now what am I trying to get at here? Well, a computer plays EXACTLY like a human would except infinitely more superior. A human may calculate maybe around 10 to 12 moves ahead max. Even Gary Kasparov has stated on a radio show that he can calculate somewhere around 10-20 moves ahead in a particularly tough position but not on a frequent basis. Meanwhile, a computer can be set to calculate 30 moves in advance ON EVERY SINGLE MOVE. Another fact of chess is the positional aspect. Even the so-called "Super" Grandmasters make tactical inaccuracies in their games and it would be safe to say that they err pretty much every single game. A computer plays with position in mind but to the point where they never make these inaccuracies. Third, many chess players prepare for tournaments by memorizing certain lines and learning the logic behind the games of previous masters. A computer has a database with MILLIONS of games, openings, and endgames. This is far more than a human player could ever achieve in his lifetime. Lastly, there is the psychological/physical aspect of the game. The human brain will fatigue after strenuous use and is also affected by the environment he/she is playing in, but a computer is a cold, hard calculating machine who never tires. As strong as computers are now, we cannot deny that computers will only get stronger in the future. Based on the exponential(and not linear) growth of computing power today, we can expect chess computers to also grow exponentially in strength. My final and perhaps most important question is this: Why are we still playing chess, and even if we succeed over-the-board against other humans, what is the point of playing chess if there is always going to be a computer that is able to destroy even ten world champion level players working together? If someone cannot answer this question, I am prepared to put my board back in the closet and donate all my books to the library. Thank you for your time.

You are right, there would be no point.

But still continue to play, that is why I dont play against computers, they are almost impossible to beat

Would you stop playing chess if you didn't reasonably expect to be the best human player alive?  Obviously, most of us never come close to that level, yet we still play.  I'm a very average player, and I know I'm never going to be an expert, much less a master or grandmaster.  I still enjoy the game.

Why let the fact that a computer can beat you get in the way?

If you're scared to do something just because there's someone or something out there that's better than you at it, then, quite frankly, you're a loser and you fail at life.

Lol. If there would be 4 grandmasters and each one of them would move once when deep rybka 4 would move once.. scholar's mate=P

You mean fool's mate, scholar's mate is to advanced :D

Ive been thinking of that too. True we humans are the last in many things, yet we still survive and thrive. Most animals run faster than we do. Many are stronger than we are. But as no animal can beat our brain the we are glad. Intellingence is our primal pride and its very hard for human to accept others may be more intellingent than us. "He may be smarter than me in his field, but im more intellingent than him in mine". Real competition should be in equal circumstances to be fair. Man vs man is what matter here. Then again, Usain bolt would lose to a Hypopotamus.

But we still play chess because we like it, or we love it, or because we find pleasure in it. I find pleasure holding a position against a better player. I find pleasure beating a human with emotions, and capable of making mistakes. Entertainment here is key: Would you imagine a perfect football game without mistakes? how boring it will be. Let the calculators beat us, we will get the pleasure of playing.

I find it very hopeful that computers can do such deep analysis. I think it may lead to a resurrection of romantic gambit chess, Morphy style.

Look at this game between Houdini and Rybka gambiting pawns in the opening like it has a short circuit, only it turns out its just an amazing 20 move combination starting from pawn sacs. It may turn out that these gambits are good because those tempos will actually be realizable to material advantage further ahead than any human can possibly calculate.It may be a resurrection of romantic chess. Nakamura is playing Muzio gambits in tournaments. Computers have steralized chess, made it clinical, not they seem to be bringing back 19th century gambit style play.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xWdMqvGMxF4

The hypopotamus defense or the animal?  Would a hypopotamus play the hypopotamus defense? 

To answer the original question, real life is not the move The Terminator.  Computers are not living entities.  They are tools humans use.  We make tools to do things better.  Computers playing chess is humans playing using a tool.  No need to feel insecure.

The only interest in chess is the human struggle and trying to do your best OTB with your (by definition limited) knowledge and resources.

By definition, there's only one world champion anyway...

Level the playing field by limiting the processing energy available. How many watts or joules or calories are dedicated to the ‘deep thinking’ that GMs apply when playing in top flight tournaments. Then limit the wattage, or joules, available to the silicon competitor. That would then perhaps challenge the techies for a few years to come?