Computers or Humans?

Submitted by MGuckenberg on Thu, 11/27/2008 at 9:01am.

Ever since the invention of the computer it seems as if Humans have been attempting to create a machine that can play chess better and faster than any human past, present, or future. Ever since Deep Blue’s defeat of Garry Kasparov, it seems that the goal has been achieved. With programs like Deep Junior and Fritz now readily available, it would have to be stated that there is now no human on earth that is capable of competing with the new generation of superhuman chess programs. While Humans may be more creative than a chess computer, they cannot compete with the speed and accuracy with which the new chess computers analyze their games. I ask of anyone to disprove this statement and further the support the argument that a human with its feeble little mind can compete, and defeat a superhuman chess computer.

» posted in MGuckenberg's Blog

| 100 reads | 2 comments

Comments:

by Laoscala - 11 months ago
Melbourne Australia

Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 62

As far as Chess is concerned, for every strategy there is a counter strategy...that's just how the game works.

Another thing...It took three attempts for "The Deep Blue Team" (yes, a Team of Engineers and Chess players and Deep Blue itself) to beat Grand Master World Champion Gary Kasparov. Even then Gary complained that the Engineers built Deep Blue to beat Gary Kasparov - not to play Chess as though the computer did everything unaided i.e. without Anti-Gary Kasparov tactics and strategy.

Finally, it took a Human to design Deep Blue. That includes hardware, software and Anti - Gary Kasporav Tactics and strategy...and Gary was not at all ultimately convinced of the win anyway (and he would know wouldn't he??).

The fact that even a human / computer combination did not beat him the first two times and in arguably cheating the third round I would have to say the computer is still not as good as a human.

P.S. How good is computer software in laying subtle traps or spotting the manipulative weakness of one and thus avoiding it? Answer: Only as good as the Chess-player who designed it!

by MGuckenberg - 11 months ago
Washington DC United States

Member Since: Nov 2008
Member Points: 10

Please coment on this argument. I would like to hear what others think on the issue.

^ Back to top