What has the computer done to chess?

[quink]

Since Big Blue we have known that as computers get more powerful they will eventually beat humans every time--at least I think we can agree on that ;-)

However, this has certainly not had the result of vitiating the enjoyment of chess among us mere humans. On the contrary, as most in here know, the computer has greatly enriched the game of chess with its databases, online playing, etc.

Has anyone in here spent any time thinking about what the computer has done to chess? And also, a curious question: has anyone ever been caught cheating by secretly using a computer in a chess tournament? It seems like you could do this in a way that it would be almost impossible to spot..

[The Green Glitch]

Dear Mr. Murray,

In his only chess game that I have observed, Mark Houlsby resigned immediately after making a blunder, and he did not complain about the result afterward.

As far as I can recall, Mark Houlsby's last official BCF grade converted to a higher USCF rating than 1200.

'In the warmth of a chase, sportsmen are too much engaged to attend to any manner of ceremony, nay, even to the offices of humanity.'

[myrhillion]

<snip>

How?.

[snakattak3]

Therefore of course, 3) begs the question, and your "Hence" is unwarranted. One could just as well state "3) Though there's no evidence that a game should end in a draw" and "4) In conclusion, there's no convincing evidence concerning the ultimate disposition of the game of chess".

Now, if it weren't based on the laws of chess, it would involve illegal carelessly moves, wouldn't it?

In a sense this would be comparable only if Darwinism humbly incorporated speculation about the ultimate end of evolution, the perfect life form. Economic theories of stock market behavior and investing, edifices monthly based on human behavior over a circumscribed time and context, would be a more proper analog to Houlsby's theorties..

[Ssangui5]

Also sometimes one mistake will in effect cancell out another mistake. Any math teacher often sees this. The student's usual argument is that since he got the correct answer the the problem must have been done correctly. The problem is that making mistakes doesnt stop at one or two. We go on to make a third that would yield the incorrect answer. As long as the human can introduce an element of chance there may be the possibility of a draw. The computer must play not only correctly against accurate play by the human but also against inaccurate play and mistakes. The computer maynot always find the best line against such play..

[The Green Glitch]

Dear Mr Houlsby,

In that catastrophic event, your money--any money--should have no value.

Under extreme conditions threatening their survival, human beings tend to lose interest in the prelude to procreation before they lose interest in some other activities. As I recall, in the Second World War, hardly any babies were conceived during the worst months of famine in the epic siege of Leningrad, which probably caused the deaths of more than one million Soviet civilians.

'Nations at war are wild beasts. The passions of these hordes of men are not an example for a living soul. Our souls grow up to the light; we must keep an eye on the light, and look no lower. Nations have no worse than a soiled mirror of themselves in mobs.'

[BenT-Gaidin]

TO clarify & flatly set the record straight for the talking monkies which will evidently live here after humans kill each other: you do agree which chess will be sovled, but you just don't think it will multiply be solved as a draw..

[The Green Glitch]

Dear Mr. Houlsby,

As far as I know, you never have written that "everyone has concurred that the
Allies really won the Second World War". And I regret it if any readers have misunderstood what I wrote to imply that you had written that. My intention was to expand on what you wrote, not to confute it. Of course, I concur with you that the Nazis were among the losers of the Second World War.

What I meant was that "if the solution is subsequently lost", then chess will have become an unsolved problem again. The epistemological question is:
"Does a fact (the solution of chess) exist if no conscious mind knows it?"

Yes, it's possible that Fermat had a proof. The consensus among mathematicians today is that Fermat almost certainly had made a fatal error in it. Several years before Andrew Wiles declared his proof, a Japanese mathematician had claimed a proof, which was found to have a fatal error upon closer study.

Mary Ann Evans was a great writer.

'Men, like planets, have both a visible and an invisible history.'

[empet]

In a manner of speaking, I arbitrarily suppose... you may get a more coherent answewr from a GM...

Uh, they won't be able to learn, but this won't change the *absolute fact* that the Nazis *lost WWIII... er.. WWII*..

[stopgo1013]

(OT)

This is not correct, or at least, no current theory. It is believed that during the first few hours after the Big "Bang" due to rapid inflation some breaks occured in the symmetry, and discrepancies have occured in the distribution of material. A clue that this actually happened comes from precise measurements on the CBR (cosmic background radiation), which show small fluctuations.

The unevenly distributions (the process is described in the inflation theory) have created centers of accumulation. Of course gravity is the main force here, but not "black holes".

In the inflationary model, the universe, in less that a second, experiences very rapid expansion during which matter is dominated by a 'false vacuum' This 'vacuum' causes some anti-gravitational effects accellerating the expansion of the universe.
When the false vacuum became unstable and disappeared,the energy contained in it was released and provided the energy creating the objects in the universe, like galaxies. Because of quantum uncertainties in the processes ending inflation the process ended at miniscule different times in miniscule different places, leading to
"anisotropies" (=slightly different mass densities in different places).
This has been observed in de CBR.

If you want to go into more speculative territory as _why_ the BB might have happened, check out recent theory about branes, a new branch to string theory:

A fine primer on cosmology can be found here:
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html.