Comment by jobigoud | Hacker News Reader

Comment by jobigoud | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

I think it's different. In physical sports, we already have categories, because we have to overcome physical limitations. For example we have separated human sprinting into Male and Female categories forever. In boxing or martial arts we even have weight categories. So you can be good "for a woman" and it doesn't carry much stigma.

For chess, it's supposed to be a purely intellectual game, and even though there are categories, the top women can play with the top men. This wouldn't make sense in 100m dash where the Women world's record is beaten by highschool boys.

Essentially this places the entire human species in a second-tier category. Human champions are now good, "for a human". Humans are in the lower league and we must make sure they only play between each other because of their inferior cognitive capabilities. They are no longer competing for the genuine title of best chess player in the World, they wouldn't even qualify to enter the tournament. The World best human in history can be beaten by the equivalent of a highschooler machine player.

I think the comparison with the 100m dash is very apt.

We have machines that can obviously beat any human runner but the point of the race is to race other humans, not machines.

The point and fun of chess will remain to play against other humans.

Cars don't change how humans run. Computer chess does change how humans play. While yes, the interesting part is watching humans play humans, the concern is that computers will influence players, be it in chess or competitive videogames, into less interesting play. I think that's a real concern as artificial intelligence improves, though right now I don't think it's a problem.

Yeah, a better comparison would be the triathlon, if instead of one part being on a bike, you instead got a motorbike and every year new tech made that faster. Sure you still have 2/3 down to humans but 1/3 is sort of automated.

But as you say, this doesn't seem to be an issue currently, and 2019 has been quite exciting in classical chess. I think right now there are more potential openings on the table than any time this century, as new engines (re)introduce lines that Stockfish didn't think highly of, and that can continue for quite a while.

Surely people don’t use computers WHILE playing? So it’s like having the coach ride in the car, yelling at the runner while he practices. Quite innocuous.

Sure, and remembering 20 moves of computer prep in various different lines is a skill in itself, and knowing _which_ lines to prep or innovate in is part of the metagame. But it still feels a _bit_ unnatural, no?

Well yes, but not really much different from memorising openings from a book. Personally I find all kinds of professional sports and competition a bit boring, it was more fun when people were amateurs.

As long as computers are only used for training, what will change with improved AI?

Yes, but if you cheat with a car in the 100m pretty much everyone will know. Although this has been done with longer races. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Lorz)

Another related issue is races with amputated sprinters when the prosthetics provides an unfair advantage because it's lighter, has better mechanical properties than a biological leg, makes the runner taller (longer strides) and doesn't have lactic acid limits.

This hasn't quite happened yet but it's getting closer in the 400m and I expect long jump will also at some point have disabled athletes perform better than able bodied ones (Disabled long jumpers all jump off their prosthetic leg). The debate about allowing disabled athletes into the "general" events is growing.

It might be better and more affirmative to lose the disabled label and call them cyborgs, then give them their own category.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com