I don’t understand why does it always have to be Man versus Machine matches?
When I challenged Deep Blue in 1996 after I won my 4th World Championship, they politely declined. In March 2004, I finally had a chance to play a friendly game against Deep Blue when the US Women’s Olympiad Training Squad visited IBM facility in Yorktown Heights.
There have been plenty of Man versus Machine matches and virtually no Woman versus Machine matches in the last 10 years. Why not? Why not test women’s logic versus machine logic?If the conditions are right, I would have no problem playing a match against any computer program. The machines are crushing Khalifman, Ponomariov and Kasimdzhanov in Bilbao.
I think the playing conditions are totally unfair for humans.
A. There is no reason why computers should have access to opening books and humans don’t. Opening books have nothing to do with Man or Woman versus any machine. It is like taking a test and having access to the text book. If machines are allowed to have opening books, so should humans. This would save humans plenty of time to concentrate in the middlegames.
B. Endgame tablebases. Again, there is no reason why machines should have access to endgame tablebases and humans don’t. This has nothing to do with calculations. It has to do with having access to a database. Machines no longer need to think when the game is down to about 5 pieces or less. Therefore, both sides should have the same access.
The true test would then be the human minds versus computer logic. I think that if the conditions are fairer, humans would stand a better chance against machines. That would be a lot more interesting. These are my official suggestions. 
Those are some good points about having access to the databases. I mean what are the time restrictions to the game anyway? Just by looking at a few diagrams, I’m sure the human player can extrapolate their own strategies a lot more quickly than the computers. And I’m sure it would reduce mental ‘blunders’ like in the Ponomariov-Fritz match.
You’re right–they should be called “human versus machine” and I certainly think you should have gotten a chance against it. Of course the term “man” used to be (and still is to some degree) used to refer to people of both genders; I’m surprised the PC police didn’t get after them for that little slip 🙂
As for the opening book issue, that’s a trickier problem. People certainly memorize opening moves, and the computer should be allowed to as well. The computer’s advantage is its elephantine memory; we can stuff in as many opening moves as we want and it’ll never forget, whereas humans have to sleep once in a while, and think about other things…
Then the question becomes: where do you draw the line? If we allow the human access to opening books, it’s probably easiest to do so in the form of an openings database. But then Deep Blue used GM games as part of its training (and, IIRC, it had access to a game database while it played)–so, ok, let’s let the human have access to ChessBase Mega or something like that.
But then consider Hydra, which is essentially a collection of computers all searching for moves. Why shouldn’t the human be allowed to use an auxiliary processor, namely a laptop running Fritz or Crafty?
The endgame database issue is a bit more complex. Tests run with Crafty a few years ago showed that it typically played only about ~10 points stronger with it, and it actually lost a few games which otherwise should’ve been drawn. (See http://www.aarontay.per.sg/Winboard/weaktablebase.html)
Computers these days are quite good at endgames even without the database, because with five or fewer pieces it’s feasable in many positions to search at least 20-30 moves deep. And the 50-move rule starts to come into play after a while; the tablebases don’t take it into account. It’s not clear if it really does help most of the time.
Looked at from the standpoint of an AI experiment, it totally made sense to have Garry Kasparov play “as usual” without any additional aid. The challenge (and the prize) was to make a computer which could outplay the world’s best human player on the human’s usual home turf.
Things would be far more interesting if the human had access to databases and even a chess program running on a laptop, and this has already been done a few times. We know that computers play chess better than humans in most cases; that’s not an interesting result now. I’ll be truly impressed when the computer still wins consistently even when the human has lots of outside help.
My concern is that we’ll eventually reach the point where mainstream chess (human vs. human) is routinely played with the aid of computers. I’m sure it’ll happen, it’s just a question of when… and I think we’ll ultimately be worse off for it.
I still like the no mercy rule. No shame in losing to a super comp anyway.
Thanks Susan!
I didn’t realize the great disparity that humans were faced with. Of course access to databases in the beginning and end should be equalized.
I never understood the rooms on playchess wher people play with their computers against each other
Here’s another question: Why is it that Susan Polgar is the ONLY (as far as I can tell) woman to promote women’s chess? There are so many talented women players out there, it is a crying shame that Susan has to bear the brunt of the labor!
susan ,
well said , again im impressed with your logic and your vision
These suggestions are quite useless. They remind me of a sprinter who unwittingly joined a Formula 1 race and then demanded that the drivers don’t use the gearshift stick, “because the human doesn’t have any gears and it puts him at a distinct disadvantage”.
A (hu)man vs. machine contest is all about one simple principle: a (hu)man can only use what’s inside his brain. A machine can only use what’s inside the machine. That’s all.
I would not want to watch any match where the machine is artificially handicapped, just as I wouldn’t want to watch a lobotomized GM.
I respectfully disagree with 42ndSSD’s last point. Human v. Human chess games will not necessarily be played with the assistance of computers. Thats just plain ridiculous.
I can see envision tournaments where the rules allow the use of computers. That type of competition has its place in chess. However, at traditional tournaments, such as weekend swiss and quads, there is no reason to suggest that “we’ll eventually reach the point where mainstream chess (human vs. human) is routinely played with the aid of computers”. Why must that happen? As far as I am concerned, over-the-board games of chess, without the aid of a computer, is the most fun and challenging game there is, and access to a computer during play will change the nature of the competition in a way that most chess players will not accept.
Therefore, I (respectfully) disagree with your hypothesis that “we’ll eventually reach the point where mainstream chess (human vs. human) is routinely played with the aid of computers”.
Alex Shternshain, that is your own logic. I happen to disagree with you and agree with Susan. What is your rating? Are you even qualified to make judgment on the level of GMs and super computers?
Burt
Hmmm…I’m for a more random variant of chess in computer versus human matches.
Or, perhaps stricter time limits on the computer than the human, as computers like Deep Blue can now calculate orders of magnitude faster than humans, and be limited only by their programming.
Oooh, I have misunderstood Susan’s original suggestion. She’s not advocating taking the gearshift away from the drivers, but giving it to the sprinter… which makes even less sense. In fact, it makes so little sense that I cannot describe it in words. And since I cannot describe it, I will let two fictional characters do it for me. Please welcome Bob the CEO and Jennifer the Director of Public Relations.
JENNIFER: Sir, you wanted to see me?
BOB: Jennifer, step into my office please (closes door) Please tell me, what is this?
JENNIFER: Uhm, looks like a newspaper article about the Humans vs. Machines chess match.
BOB: Which we sponsor for $250,000, right?
JENNIFER: Yes, and we’re getting some nice coverage.
BOB: Please take a closer look at this photo over here. Can you see what’s wrong with this picture?
JENNIFER: Uhm, looks like a human playing chess against a computer operator. I don’t see the problem, sir.
BOB: For crying out loud, both of those guys have laptops open! What kind of Human vs. Machine is this?!
JENNIFER: Well, sir, one of the laptops is running Chessbase, which is a database of games, and the other is using Fritz 9 which is …
BOB: So you’re telling me those guys are both competing using different chess software? And that the only difference between them is the kind of software each one is operating?
JENNIFER: Well, now that you put it this way, sir, it does sound a bit…
BOB: Can you at least tell me which one is which one runs Chessbase and which one is, uhm, the other thing?
JENNIFFER: (takes a long hard look at the photo) Well, I’m not really sure, sir.
BOB: So, to summarize, we have two guys with two laptops, with two different chess programs, we do not know which one is which, we called that Human vs. Machine, and paid quarter of a million for it?
JENNIFER: I agree, sir, the embarassement is evident.
BOB: Can we just sponsor a golf tournament next time?
JENNIFER: Yes, sir.
I can’t totally agree with you GM Susan Polgar. When it is a Man (or woman) Vs. Machine in a chess match, it is pitting Man’s brain against that of a computer. Brain’s functions include logic and also memory.
A computer can store the opening base and also the end game base in its ‘memory’. And it does not have a problem if its human opponent also does that! It is a shortcoming of the humans that they cannot very efficiently store and retrieve efficiently huge amounts of data in their brains, like the computers do. Therefore, computers will have a huge edge in this regard.
If you take away access to databases for the computers, then you are pitting machine’s logic only against human’s logic plus the opening and endgame knowledge(already stored in the brain, and difficult to flush!). And this would very unfair!
In today’s world of advanced technology, we have to accept that machines are much more efficient than humans, however humans are unsurpassable in innovation and creativity. And finally, don’t forget that al these chess machines have been programmed by humans!
That is not what she said. She said that human should have the same access to the opening and endgame base. She did not say to take away the books from the machine.
Openingbooks and tablebases play a minor role. Also logic hasn’t much to do with it. Computers simply calculate us out. That’s what it is about.
Give Susan access to all the openingbooks and all the endgame tablebases on this world and she still does not has a chance, against the computer (in a match).
Moreover, Susan’s style does not fit computers.
That is such an ignorant comment. Can you understand the difference between various styles?
Susan is one of a very few top positional women players in the world. Judit is the tactical and agressive one which is horrible against computer.
Maca
I agree with Maca. Susan would be the best possible woman player to play against computer.
Fischer Random. No opening book or endgame tablebases allowed.
I think Susan has a fair point about endgame tablebases. The machine should be forced to “calculate” the ending, just as the human does.
I don’t understand her point about opening books. Clearly humans come to a chess game with openings already memorized; so, why shouldn’t the computer do this too?
My suggestion was to allow human to have the same access to opening and endgame database, not to take it away from the computers. We want to see games at the highest level, not dummy it down.
Best wishes,
Susan Polgar
http://www.PolgarChess.com
http://www.SusanPolgar.com