A Conversation for Chess
Martin Harper Started conversation Jun 1, 2001
..."Of course the computer could not claim the title from Kasparov"
Not "of course" at all, as it happens - in other games, such as ohello (and others), computers have always been welcome to play and win titles. Nowadays othello has a seperate league for human and computers, or the humans wouldn't have a chance, but there was a period where they were co-competitors.
I think it's othello, anyway. Maybe I'm thinking of backgammon...
> "Garry Kasparov claimed that the computer was receiving human aid, proclaiming that his battle with the silicon champion was a 'fix'."
He later withdrew that claim...
Myself, I can't see what's the problem with internet chess. I'm not convinced that the ability to kick your opponent under the table when he or she starts winning significantly enhances the mental challenge of the game.
Another comment I might as well make while I'm here - the significant factor in chess ability is definately *not* nature - it's nurture - specifically, learning to play chess at the age of five, and playing it hard from then. The USSR had a long history of 'hothousing' chess champions in order to beat the USA and hence prove that communism was superior (heh - wasn't the cold war a blast?). The top two woman chess players in the UK were (last I checked) twins who went through intensive hothousing, learning chess pretty much from birth. Sure, genetics have a factor, but it doesn't appear to be the dominant one.
Titus Andronicus Posted Jun 1, 2001
I accept all of your comments completely.
But didn't you view this entry when it was in its first stages? If so - you could ghave pointed them out to me so that I could have changed any small glitches in the text! Thanks for the criticism all the same - it's just a pity I can't do anything about it now. *sob sob*
Martin Harper Posted Jun 1, 2001
Key: Complain about this post