BPaulsen wrote on 07/18/11 at 15:19:13:


Well with sloughter one can never be too sure.

Of course that is the really ubelievable part but also the idea of picking up these two players among dozens of super-GMs as an "ideal team" looks funny to me. If i remember correctly they just hate each other.

Particularly funny is the idea of a Polgar-Kasparov team 

Is chess one of the most important intellectual pursuits of humanity?

Humanity has resigned itself to the inevitability of computer dominance in progressively more sophisticated human endeavors. First it was tic tac toe, then checkers, then chess and now Jeopardy. 

In my opinion this is just a consequence of writing rules favorable to computers. With the following rules changes I predict that humans could regain their supremacy over computers.

1) Return to the pre-computer rules i.e. adjournment after 40 moves and no time delay. GM Lev Alburt in the February 2011 Issue of Chess Life suggested this when he responded to a game I played against Fritz 12.

2) Critical to allowing humans to regain their supremacy is the "one second rule". 

Under no circumstance should computers be allowed to move faster than one move/sec. If computer programmers balk, tell them they have to develop the programming to calculate the move, physically move the piece, punch the clock and physically record their move on the scoresheet in less than one second. If they refuse they should be the object of ridicule. The alternative: the one second rule.

With the one second rule and no time delay, humans can run computers out of time or force blunders in Rook and pawn endings.

3) Promote consultation games. I predict that the best consultation team would be Garry Kasparov and Judit Polgar because of their similar styles and openings would easily beat any combination of compyters. Add to that Joel Benjamin for his computer programming skills and knowledge of computer's "plans".

What is the likelihood of these three professionals all missing the same tactical shot the way Kramnk did?

Think of how we can sell this to the media! "Beauty versus the Beast". When we have simple dull positions these players would be expected to talk to the announcers what plans they are considering while the other two players are discussing the position.

The players will be encouraged to "think out loud" and discuss their plans. Since the audience will have computers to follow and analyze the game it will be like the "Perils Of Pauline" as we watch these professionals come up with a winning plan or far worse overlook a winning tactical shot by the computer! This will keep the spectators on the edge of their seats! This format will have vast spectator appeal as viewers around the world watch the game and will produce the greatest works of art chess has ever seen.

Add a huge time clock so that the audience can sense a win as the humans run the computer out of time at the end of the game.

To meet TV demands for time, I suggest editing the games if they are prerecorded. Resignation is not allowed so that the younger viewers can watch how to win a won game.

Because of enormous spectator appeal this should appeal to sponsors with a guarantee of a huge purse.

Think of the boost to the human spirit if three professionals could take on a machine that can calculate one trillion position/sec. and still beat it easily! 

Professionals have resigned themselves to the belief that computers will be permanent World Champion. Suppose with these rules changes humans could easily regain supremacy over computers!? This needs testing.