The computer play can be reduced to calculation and evaluation: if they are able to defeat the humans (one, two or else ten exceptions mean nothing) is because they surely calculate better, but also because they evaluate better (than Grand Masters!).

However, the point of my previous statement was that computers are not yet superior to humans at chess simply because our finest, most serious, and dedicated players can still hold their own when playing them. Chess is an ancient game invented by humans, and we only created computers a few decades ago, therefore the burden of proof is on the computers to demonstrate without a doubt that they are superior to us, not vice versa, and so far they have not done that (they can crush less-skilled players, just as less-skilled players can crush less powerful or "cheap" chess computers, but at the present time their best do not seem able to beat our best).

I hate the use of computers to extend chess skills, nevertheless they are currently used in this way, only they are not yet officially permitted during games, but ...

I'm only stating that I don't see any other possible solution if not stopping to play chess. Computers like any other machine are extensions of human skills: you can dislike their uses, but not avoid it. After Alekhine's and especially Botvinnik's approach to chess preparation, I think all this a natural and inevitable evolution.

I will always consider Lasker and Capablanca by far over any other player because their approach to the game was ... solving problems on the board.

Let me begin by saying I play near a master level, while that isn't that great, I'm getting a PHD in artificial intellgence and I would like to make a few comments concerning the machine conversation above.

First of all, we have Moore's law, which states that processors double in speed and power and shrink by half every 2 years. Its a linear function thats held for the last 30 years and will make it at least another 20 until the size of a memory bit reaches an atom. At this point, you have quantum effects and classical computation breaks down.

What does this mean? Well the major way computers play chess is calculating positions. Its not inconceivable that 5 years from now a machine will be built that no human will EVER beat at chess, period. Especially since the strongest players are being drawn today. Just recently several other games have also been "solved" using computers. Example, chess could be solved as a win for white, always, although I tend to believe it will be solved as a draw.

Although many advances in heuristics have appeared in the last several years, its the brute force computation thats driving the major increases in chess playing ability.

I don't think this will end chess, but like John Henry, its the end of an era, even if he did win the piledriver competition. Remember he dies in the legend and the machines take over.

My granddad loves to play checkers, but in the early 60's a checkers program was written that cannot be beaten. I don't see many people my age (28) playing checkers although I gather it was once popular.

However there is hope, the japanese game Go has a branching factor of about 360 at each ply of the game tree ( compared to 36 for chess ). As there are more possible games of Go than atoms in the universe brute force searching has been a total failure. The best computer programs rely on inference rules or pattern recognition, like humans use, but are no better than the average Go player at a local club.

So if your worried about machines, play Go, it will be safe until I get my PHD and start my research group :)

I do believe you can capture pieces in Go, freeing board positions. Although I understand that often this isn't done if the pieces are truly "dead". So its not necessarily true that the branching factor drops. A smart human knowing he/she is playing a brute force machine may very well capture to increase the program's workload.

Also to note, reducing the branching factor from 360 (approx) by 1 isn't very much. Even after 60 moves its still 300. To keep scale in mind, looking only 4 moves ahead from this position involves over 8 trillion positions to evaluate. A daunting task considering that a normal 10 year old could look farther ahead.

As for MacFadian having a vocabulary, its his ability to recognize the patterns of winning positions evolving in the game. Thus pattern recognition is a key element of current approaches. Yet this is only the long term problem, also one must deal with tactics as well. Go is an interesting game, I plan on playing more.

Genetic algorithms has been a vital area of research in artificial intellgence for some time. In fact, my dissertation will probably involve genetically evolving neural networks that simulate artificial animals. Ideally one can figure out selection criteria to "force" certain types of things, such as language or altruism to evolve. People have been working on this stuff.

Then you get to write a nasty long paper and become famous.

Actually though, this particular subfield is too new to be getting any respect, professional journals and conferences are less than 10 years old. However I, unlike my compatriots, predict limitless potential...

I will however, dispute your claim that without evolution such aspects of artificial intellgence cannot be developed. In fact, its well known that evolution is the SECOND best way of solving a problem, the best is having a deterministic algorithm. And at this point in my education, I've seen some pretty crazy things. An example, one of the first rule-based AI systems ( 1980~ish ) was developed to diagnosis illnesses. A doctor diagnosis is wrong 1 in 5000 times on average. This program was wrong in 1 in 3 million times. Why don't you see it used everywhere? Cuz the doctors got together and killed it. Call it technophobia, people afraid machines taking over like in terminator. However in my opinion, what do doctors do other than diagnosis and prescribe medicine? Only surgeons really do something. When was the last time a doctor and not a nurse even stuck you with a needle? Rabid self-interest groups defending the status quo, using either the fear of god or the fear of machines to paralyze society to the detriment of everyone but themselves. Get outta the way I say!

But this is all academic ( forgive the pun ), the newscientist.com website has an AI section with many interesting articles, although they only tend to publish the sci fi type stuff. You can get your fill of genetic algorithms and artificial life there.

I thought games were algorithms, but you're right; this is not an AI site.

This thread, and one running thru Kibitzer's Cafe started with the disappointment in Kasporaovs last 3 games with Deep Jr. He seems to be playing for a Draw, rather than attempting to win. He has stepped out of the "Book" a couple of times, and Deep Jr. was not "fazed" (if that word can be applied). So the discussion devolved into debate about Chess software.

More typical commentary can be found in the recent threads over Karpov, (great position player), and Spassky. Even there though, a lot of analysis is being done by computer, so there are references to computer "thought" in a lot of places.

Just type in an opening or a player you want to explore, this site even has games with historical commentary.

I myself enjoy Ruy Lopez and Sicilian games for, among other reasons, the patterns they give the board.