Enter Your Reply

''Oh, let us never, never doubt/ What nobody is sure about.'' --Hilaire
Belloc    Good topic and question that has no direct takers here yet [Arimaa being directly related].
Speculate that any ''CV'' can be tweaked toward complications for
computers to the extent needed for the period of time, be it 1990s, 2020s
or 2040s. Chess is, or ought to be, so much more than programming strong
play. Instead of 50% input from information technologists, how much better
it would be for input of 10% each from real ''artists'' of painting or
sculpture chess-playing Marcel Duchamp, 10% literature of which Chess is
extensive, 10% players of specific next-chesses, 10% prolificists content
to talk abstractly instead of concretely, 10% mathematicians, 10% sports
enthusiasts, 10% moralists on how to reach the wavering millions etc. (Any one of the foregoing specialists could try another mask for a while too: it's not as if one person is one thing only.) But Joe's topic is important, to put in everyday language
what the holes, perceived by experts, are in AI for human-human and
human-computer competitive purposes; because the holes then becoming associated with mere rules have to be interpretable by players regardless the underlying theory pointing one direction or another.