Hi Harry, I think I understand that you're saying that even when the chess players are playing the computer, they're playing a human.
So, Harry, do you think that if a machine produces something beautiful, that product is art? Is the machine an artist? Perhaps you would say that, since the machine is being manipulated by a human, the product is really being produced by a human? What comes to my mind is fractals which could not be produced by a human. Granted, the human has to put in the information that will make it possible for the computer to produce the fractal, but is that the same thing as composing a beautiful piece of music or a painting or a poem or delivering an opera aria that makes one tremble and cry? Selma I've been moved to tears by some fractals I've seen. S. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Harry Pollard" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>; <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Saturday, January 25, 2003 7:43 PM Subject: Chess (was If a Machine Creates Something Beautiful, Is It an Artist?) > Selma, > > I used to be a pretty good chess player, but both my boys outstripped me. > (Chess was the only thing I forced on my children. I made them play when > they didn't want to, then when they weren't bad, I stopped pushing and let > nature take its course.) > > Alan reached the top 40 in the country as a professional and to my horror I > realized he wasn't pushing wood, but playing to a pattern. These top > players look at the board and they see a positive or negative pattern in > the arrangement of pieces - so they move to make the negative - positive! > > I haven't played them for several decades. I'm not that stupid. > > But to the computer. As I understand it, in Kasparov's matches, the IBM > computer wizards were changing the machine all the time. As information > came in about Kasparov's play, they would make adjustments. > > So Kasparov was playing a different machine all the time - until eventually > he made a mistake and it won - the other games in the match were draws - as > I recall. > > Chess is like all games. People are playing people and although we expect > bluffing in Poker, Bridge, and suchlike - the same thing goes on in Chess > matches. When Alan played, he was not necessarily playing to win, but > playing for the best monetary return. > > Then, of course, there was Lasker, who smoked an ill-smelling cigar which > would be puffed into an opponent's face. But, of course, that would never > happen now. > > Harry > > -------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- > > > Selma wrote: > > >This article from NYTimes.com > >has been sent to you by [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >It seems to me that this article fits some of the recent discussions on > >this list in some oblique way. > > > >Selma > > > >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > >If a Machine Creates Something Beautiful, Is It an Artist? > > > >January 25, 2003 > >By DYLAN LOEB MCCLAIN > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Ask most chess grandmasters if chess is art and they will > >say unequivocally, "Yes." Ask them if chess is also a sport > >and the answer will again be yes. But suggest that chess > >might be just a very complex math problem and there is > >immediate resistance. > > > >The question is more than academic. Beginning tomorrow in > >New York, Garry Kasparov, the world's top-ranked player and > >the former world champion, will play a $1 million, six-game > >match against a chess program called Deep Junior. It will > >be the fourth time that Mr. Kasparov has matched wits > >against a computer and the first time since he lost a > >similar match in 1997 to Deep Blue, a chess-playing > >computer developed by I.B.M. Recently, Vladimir Kramnik, > >Mr. Kasparov's former protégé and the current world > >champion, tied an eight-game match against another chess > >playing program called Deep Fritz. > > > >Whether Mr. Kasparov wins or loses, clearly chess computers > >have reached a point where they can compete against, and > >sometimes beat, the world's best players. Even Mr. > >Kasparov, always reluctant to acknowledge that anyone or > >anything might be superior to him over a chess board, > >admits that the point at which computers consistently play > >better than humans is probably not that far off. > > > >But if computers become better than humans at chess, does > >that mean that computers are being artistic or that chess > >is essentially a complicated puzzle? > > > >The question arises partly because of the very different > >ways that humans and computers play chess. People rely on > >pattern recognition, stored knowledge, some calculation and > >that great unquantifiable - intuition. Computers, on the > >other hand, have a database of chess knowledge but mostly > >rely on brute force calculation, meaning they sift through > >millions of positions each second, placing a value on each > >result. In other words, they play chess the way they attack > >a large math problem. > > > >Chess is not the only field where computers have achieved > >success formerly thought to be achievable only through > >human creativity. In 1997, six months after the victory by > >Deep Blue, a competition was held at Stanford University > >between a human and a computer to see which could compose > >music in the style of Bach. The computer won. Monty > >Newborn, a professor of computer science at McGill > >University in Montreal who has just published a book called > >"Deep Blue: An Artificial Intelligence Milestone," thinks > >that the question of what chess is is fairly clear. "There > >is no question that it is a puzzle," he said. "Some people > >like to imagine that it is an art form." > > > >But if that were the case, some chess players reply, then > >why are so many people who play chess well not good at > >math? David Goodman, an international master, said that > >chess players come from many backgrounds with different > >skills. "In international tournaments, it's true, I've > >played a grandmaster who became a math professor at 23. But > >there are others who were writers and lawyers and even one > >who played soccer on Norway's national team," Mr. Goodman > >said. > > > >Others do not see the implications for computer supremacy > >in chess in black-and-white terms. Murray Campbell, a > >developer of Deep Blue who still works at I.B.M., said that > >Deep Blue's designers had adopted a scientific and an > >engineering approach when building the computer, but that > >the results could be viewed as artistic, regardless of what > >produced them. > > > >"The question reminds me of the question that often gets > >asked in artificial intelligence," he said. "Is the system > >intelligent? It is because it produces intelligent > >behavior. If it does something artistic, then it is > >artistic. It does not matter how it did it." > > > >Jonathan Schaeffer, a professor of computer science at the > >University of Alberta who created Chinook, the best > >checkers playing entity in the world, thinks that checkers > >and chess are art and sport, regardless of how well > >computers play them. "As a competitive chess player in my > >younger days, when I played a beautiful game, I wanted to > >frame it and put it on the wall," Mr. Schaeffer said. > >"Chess is also a sport because it is incredibly mentally > >and physically demanding. That computers play it better > >does not lessen any of the enjoyment that we can get from > >the game." > > > >For his part, Mr. Kasparov thinks that chess is art and > >sport as well as math and science. If there were a clear > >answer about what chess is, he says, "then the game of > >chess is over." > > > >Mr. Campbell of I.B.M. worries that chess could be > >relegated to the realm of a complex math problem if > >computers ever "solve" the game - figure out all the > >possibilities and know the result regardless of what moves > >are played. For now, while computers have managed to solve > >all endgames where there are six or fewer pieces on the > >board, it does not seem possible that they will be able to > >solve the entire game given that the number of chess moves > >in an average game is estimated to be about 10 to the 40th > >power. That number is so large, it would take the most > >powerful computers billions of years to calculate it. > > > >But, Mr. Campbell said, if computers do ever solve chess it > >would ruin it artistically. Already, he said, those > >endgames that computers have solved sometimes take so many > >moves that the ideas behind them are at times hard to > >follow. "That is not beautiful," he said. "It is just > >incomprehensible." > > > >http://www.nytimes.com/2003/01/25/arts/25TANK.html?ex=1044502355&ei=1&en=29 ad17fecbf0dd34 > > > > > ****************************** > Harry Pollard > Henry George School of LA > Box 655 > Tujunga CA 91042 > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Tel: (818) 352-4141 > Fax: (818) 353-2242 > ******************************* > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- > > --- > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > Version: 6.0.445 / Virus Database: 250 - Release Date: 1/21/2003 > _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
