I don't look at computers as opponents. For me it is much more interesting to beat humans.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
A computer once beat me at chess, but it was no match for me at kick boxing.
When humans team up with computers to play chess, the humans who do best are not necessarily the strongest players. They're the ones who are modest and who know when to listen to the computer. Often, what the human adds is knowledge of when the computer needs to look more deeply.
Computers have proved to be formidable chess players. In fact, they've beaten our top human chess champions.
I've always felt that the human-centered approach to computer science leads to more interesting, more exotic, more wild, and more heroic adventures than the machine-supremacy approach, where information is the highest goal.
We've seen computers play chess and beat grand masters. We've seen computers drive a car across a desert. But interestingly, playing chess is easy, but having a conversation about nothing is really difficult for a computer.
Personally, I rather look forward to a computer program winning the world chess championship. Humanity needs a lesson in humility.
For example, computer defends well, but for humans its is harder to defend than attack, particularly with the modern time control.
Computers seem a little too adaptively flexible, like the strange natives, odd societies, and head cases we study in the social sciences. There's more opposable thumb in the digital world than I care for; it's awfully close to human.
In chess, computers show that what we call 'strategy' is reducible to tactics, ultimately. It only looks creative to us. They are still just glorified cash registers. This should make us feel uncomfortable, whether or not we think computers will ever be good composers of music or artistic painters.
I actually do like playing off-beat people. I think it's more fun.
No opposing quotes found.