- Joined
- 21 Apr 06
- Moves
- 4211
Originally posted by KnightloreYou only have to look at the "holy crap check out this game" thread containing a link to this game
To all those people who were chess players in the glory days, i.e. before computers could wipe the floor with everyone, do you think that chess has lost some of its magic?
By the time I started playing Deep Blue had been sold for parts and I can't help but feel a little sad that I missed out on the days when a move was beautiful rather than just correct.
http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1361577
to realise your statement is basicly meaningless. Computers can help with prep, finding lines and analysis of games but humans dont play like computers so at the end of the day the better computers get the further away they will become from human chess. Chess will always be magical, more complex than any human can grasp....its only your views of chess making it less magical for you.
Thanks for all your comments, glad to see that most of you think the magic's still there.
As I said, I never experienced the days when GMs could play some crazy move and baffle an opponent without somebody firing up Shredder to tell you that in fact with good defence it was a losing move. And yes, I know what many of you are saying, we don't actually play against the computers, however, there was the oft asked question of whether chess was closer to an art than a science; with the advent of superior chess being played by computers I don't think the argument can be made for art any more.
Originally posted by KnightloreI don't care about the computers! Chess is fun!
To all those people who were chess players in the glory days, i.e. before computers could wipe the floor with everyone, do you think that chess has lost some of its magic?
By the time I started playing Deep Blue had been sold for parts and I can't help but feel a little sad that I missed out on the days when a move was beautiful rather than just correct.
Computers haven’t, but the sheer numbers of players have reduced some of the magic. When I started playing the USCF had about 6000 members. Masters were rare as hen’s teeth and at a weekend Swiss, if it was announced a 2200 master would be playing, it would cause a real stir. Grandmasters? They were people who played in international tmts. (16-player round robins, not Swiss), and you only read about them in books and magazines; you never actually met one. The first GM’s I ever met were at a US Championship: Reshevsky, Benko, Bisguier, Lombardy, Browne, et al. They were legends, and to actually see them and talk to them was almost too good to be true. Actually, I take that back…I had met Euwe once and once lost an offhand game to Nicholas Rossolimo at his chess club in New York City.
Originally posted by briancronThe original post was about the "magic" being gone now that computers can beat the strongest GM's. I would argue that this is not important.
When was someone last accused of going to the bathroom to consult a bulldozer before attempting the clean and jerk?
Originally posted by kubuntuI didn't respond to the original point... I responded to yours.
The original post was about the "magic" being gone now that computers can beat the strongest GM's. I would argue that this is not important.
As far as the original post goes...
I am not a great chess player. I don't play great chess players. There are few or no great chess players on this site.
I don't care if the SuperGMs and the Super computer programs consider the opening I am playing to be dead. Knowing that a certain crazy romantic era gambit is strategically unsound and being able to prove it are two different things.
So... for me the year is 1850 and all of the possible crazy opening moves and wild play is still sound and accepted.
People are very well prepared in opening analysis to defend against the "best line" but how many times have you looked at a game where someone did something unexpected and you said "Well that move isn't in the book so it has to be bad" but lost anyway!!!
So, the magic still exists.
Originally posted by VarenkaThe fear is the same you would have if you caught someone reading the answers to your Trivial Pursuit Game.
But why would we need to find a solution... what would the problem be if computers solved chess?
If there was an "answer" from move one then it would take the enigma out of the game. No more "or"... You either play x or some inferior move. I doubt that anyone could memorize the solution since it involves a near infinite amount of board posistions but it would take a lot of the mystery from the game.
Noone would watch a GM play Fritz for instance.
Originally posted by briancronBut that depends on how you define "inferior". Anything other than x may be truly inferior for a computer versus computer game, but against a human there are other factors. For example, sometimes the best objective move doesn't cause the opponent the greatest problems. Human chess will always involve risk; complicating the position; playing for positions that you are more comfortable with than your opponent; psychology; etc.
You either play x or some inferior move.
Noone would watch a GM play Fritz for instance.
Fair enough, but most chess players are primarily players, and spectating computer games isn't a big factor.