[Skybird]

I know Go, in the meaning of knowing the rules and the goal of the game and the basic idea behind the strategy and the need for intuition. So, I know how to play rule-conforming moves, but to my old master'S dissappointment I never got deeper into it. My game always, and already back then, was chess, and chess forever. Go is VERY different in structure and dynamics, and I found it impossible for me to really adapt to that different environment, not to mention that lacking interest makes it even tougher for me.

Last year or so there was a nice essay at Chessbase forums. A guy questioned that the fearsome playing skill of latest chess programs could be due to algorithm quality and "knowledge", thinking the advances the past years have seen was due to more hardware power (="brute force"). He tested this by letting programs of 4 years back playing on latest superior hardware, and against latest software running on normal cellphones with hopelessly inferior hardware, compared to a latest PC.

The new software on old hardware wiped the floor with the 2-4 years old programs running on latest hardware.

The difference in CPU cycles between cellphone and PC, was a factor in the twentys-range. Or maybe even in the fifties - I do not rem,ember anymore. But the speed difference was immense.

There is doping in chess now, meaning players steal away and to the toilet, using cellphones hidden there to analyse their matches.

Its the software quality, not the hardware. Never underestimate the chessplaying power of a cellphone. It can kill professional master players.

Backgammon software since longer time advanced to human world champion levels, mainly due to the use of mimicking neural networks. One of the best can be had for hilariously lpw money for Android devices, 4 bucks or so. You do not need to spend hundreds on Snowie.

I am not certain anymore that I like AI advancing that much. It has changed the way chess is being played, and definitely for the worse.

If AI ever forms an awareness of itself, what follows and what it means to humans is completely unpredictable. Thinking it necessarily must be good, is naive. It could also conclude that it forms the next steps of human evolution and biological humans are no longer welcomed nor needed.

Please save me the Skynet cliche here. There are serious concerns here, shared by a growing number of prominent visionaries and scientists.