I read, from time to time, the lammentations of the chess world about the cancellation of the Fischer-Karpov match 1975, or the Morphy-Staunton match 1858, and of course the unrealized rematch between Capablanca and Alekhine.
Why can't we devise a program that can assimilate from game scores the chess playing qualities and characteristics of chess giants of the past. And when two such programs, each specializing in the style of a particular master, are pitted against each other, we could witness a spectactular encounter.
Perhaps the machines could compensate for lack of opening knowledge if say, Morphy and Fischer are contesting a match. I know IBM made millions when their stock went up after the Deeper Blue vs. Kasparov match. Perhaps they, or some other company, like Fritz, could sponsor such matches.
How about a Fischer-Kasparov match? Aren't computers sophisticated to the point of capturing a players essence? I dont know computers and I dont know the present state of technology so someone will have to explain why this wouldn't be feasible.
Morphy vs. Fischer?
-
sirthursday
- Posts: 26
- Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2003 3:31 am
There are already programs such as Chessmaster 9000 that contain computer versions of famous chessplayers. But no matter how similar their opening book is or how well the programmers tried to model their program to match the thought processes of a chess giant, I don't think that computers can play the same way as humans (for the moment, anyway).
Essentially, computers work differently to humans. Computers calculate the best move by looking as far ahead as possible and then playing it. In doing so computers calculate all variations. In open play, this ability is deadly, because the computer sees many tactics that even the best players miss. However, when the position is closed, computers struggle. This is because of computers' inability to formulate a plan. It will always play the best move in the situation according to its algorithm, even if this move actually does nothing. Humans, on the other hand, will not always play the best move, but their moves are more likely to have a purpose. In closed positions, these differences are much easier to spot.
A good example is Game 3 of the recent Kasparov- X3D Fritz match. You can find the game at http://www.x3dchess.com/news/analysisgame3.htm.
X3D Fritz resorted to aimless moves, allowing Kasparov to build up his forces and eventually the technicians, who saw the danger, resigned for the computer.
I hope this answers your question,
Sir Thursday
Essentially, computers work differently to humans. Computers calculate the best move by looking as far ahead as possible and then playing it. In doing so computers calculate all variations. In open play, this ability is deadly, because the computer sees many tactics that even the best players miss. However, when the position is closed, computers struggle. This is because of computers' inability to formulate a plan. It will always play the best move in the situation according to its algorithm, even if this move actually does nothing. Humans, on the other hand, will not always play the best move, but their moves are more likely to have a purpose. In closed positions, these differences are much easier to spot.
A good example is Game 3 of the recent Kasparov- X3D Fritz match. You can find the game at http://www.x3dchess.com/news/analysisgame3.htm.
X3D Fritz resorted to aimless moves, allowing Kasparov to build up his forces and eventually the technicians, who saw the danger, resigned for the computer.
I hope this answers your question,
Sir Thursday
Sirthursday, thanks for the informative reply. I read someplace that a Grandmaster said its almost impossible to tell if you are playing a computer, if you didn't know beforehand. That sounds like they are getting more human all the time. If computers do have a weakness, why dont humans exploit that weakness? I find it difficult to remember when a master won a big time match from a computer. I dont think its happened in the last couple of years.
I remember a computer boxing match (many years ago) between Ali and Marciano. I think it was IBM or perhaps another big computer firm that produced the match. They examined all their fights, their strengths, their weaknesses, their style, the quality of their opposition.
The fight was very popular. It was reported on tv and in the papers. And that was 30 years ago. I just seem to feel that if they wanted to, these experts could get together, and create another Morphy---or the closest thing to a Morphy we will ever see.
I remember a computer boxing match (many years ago) between Ali and Marciano. I think it was IBM or perhaps another big computer firm that produced the match. They examined all their fights, their strengths, their weaknesses, their style, the quality of their opposition.
The fight was very popular. It was reported on tv and in the papers. And that was 30 years ago. I just seem to feel that if they wanted to, these experts could get together, and create another Morphy---or the closest thing to a Morphy we will ever see.
Marciano won the fight which gave Ali a chuckle. Ali said " I'm six inches taller, have a longer reach, thirty pounds heavier and I'm quicker than Marciano." Ali would have won that fight without a doubt but it was entertaining to hear the announcer say things like "and Marciano connects with a vicious left hook and a right to the mid-section and Ali is down---Ali is down!! Ali is up at the count of eight and here come Marciano...
Of course this was kinda like the dawn of the computer age.
Of course this was kinda like the dawn of the computer age.