Warning: This post was published more than 11 years ago.
I keep old posts on the site because sometimes it's interesting to read old content. Not everything that is old is bad. Also, I think people might be interested to track how my views have changed over time: for example, how my strident teenage views have mellowed and matured!
But given the age of this post, please bear in mind:
- My views might have changed in the 11 years since I wrote this post.
- This post might use language in ways which I would now consider inappropriate or offensive.
- Factual information might be outdated.
- Links might be broken; embedded material might not appear properly.
Many thanks for your understanding.
Stephen Moss asks in the Guardian…
Has chess had its chips thanks to computers?
As with most questions in newspaper headlines, the answer is ‘no’.
Computers can do a great many things better than humans. A well-equipped computer could almost certainly beat humans at any number of sports, and if we widen the problem to include machines as well as computers, then there’s barely a sport I can think of that humans are better at. The difference is, the development of computers that can rival the chess-playing ability of the human brain is something new. But it no more invalidates the game than motor cars invalidate marathons.
Chess will continue, and I’ll continue to be beaten, as humans try to out-do each other, even if computers are better than them. And to suggest otherwise is nothing more than a cry for attention and an attempt to get people to read an article. It worked.