Computer Chess: A Historical Perspective

[Ian Thompson]

The BCS has published an article on Computer Chess: A Historical Perspective which may be of interest.

[John Saunders]

Coincidentally, yesterday I was browsing an old copy of BCM and came upon the following:

The use of seconds to assist in adjournment analysis is sometimes said to date from the 1930s. Others point out that in his match with St Amant, Staunton was greatly aided by his second, H.Wilson. The difference is that in Victorian times a second would no more have thought of suggesting moves than a boxer’s second would think of hitting his principal’s opponent with a stool. Clearly it is cheating to get help with adjournment analysis, but as it cannot be prevented it has to be legalized or else only the honest suffer. No doubt, one day, time limits will be created which force the completion of each game at a single sitting, still leaving plenty for seconds to do.

What brings on all this gloomy speculation is the advent of Chess Challenger 10. This can be used at ten different levels, one of which is designed for postal chess, where the machine may take 24 hours to find the best move. The time will come, quite soon, when it is no longer practical to play correspondence chess competitively. Meanwhile we can take comfort from the immature efforts of the chess-playing micro-computers. In this game Challenger was playing at level 10 — tournament practice — with an average response time of three minutes a move.

I won't bother giving the score of the Chess Challenger 10 game which followed. But quite prescient of Ken Whyld, writing in 1979, as regards time controls. Also interesting is the observation about adjournment analysis, and how it was considered unsporting to get help with adjourned positions.

[Matt Mackenzie]

How widely was it considered to be "unsporting", though? After all it happened often enough.

[Kevin Thurlow]

No mention of "Turochamp"! I was a bit puzzled that the article says, "6^10 = 60 million".

[Ian Thompson]

I was a bit puzzled that the article says, "6^10 = 60 million".

Why? 6^10 = 60,466,176.

[Kevin Thurlow]

I was asleep when I read it... Good point.