I must be really weird, since that was the first thing in my mind and not the chess playing ;-)

If you’d enough “calculating-power”, most games like chess would be a big math problem.

” the very best unenhanced could never dream of thinking/doing.”

Chess is mechanical, the computers use BRUTE-FORCE.The persons themselves could not interfere without ruining their performance, and if they do that, why use enhancements at all!?It is no achievement of the enhanced.

If you want to see the best performance, which you could not appreciate anyway if you’re not able to do it yourself, watch two supercomputers play.Where is the need for the monkey in that?

Once again, these games are only in so far interesting to us as our ability to calculate is limited.Do you know this game where you put 0 and + in consequtive turns into squares, till you get a winning combo or every square’s filled!? After the age of 8, or sth like that, when you figured out the dominant strategy, these kinds of games “become” boring to us.

Chess is no different, if you have more “brain-brawn” at your disposal.

” their is no reason not to enjoy them nor say competition no longer exists ”

Chess has certainly a “solution”.If you can calculate enough, there won’t be any competition.Just execution of algorithm.Of course, one could argue that being worse doesn’t make our own algoritms more interesting.

“New category of games”:

That’s what would be needed.But if you believe in the singularity, it could be that you would have to change them “exponentially”!?

And maybe there is a physical limit to intelligence or complexity
of the games.

Of course, this whole discussion assumes that people will essentialy stay the same, will essentially be the same old great apes as before, just with some toys.

People have these grand notions about future change, and then assume everything else will stay unaffected.This is, honestly, not smart.

E.g robots will replace labour, but our economy won’t change^^

Ps: Stop the strawman please. Where did I mention any “natural” esoteric “crap”.If you think technology and it’s users are not natural, termites aren’t natural either. I’m neither for nor against these technologies.I will go with the flow^^

Have a nice day:)

If you just play for fun, why use enhancements at all!?You see, it would be unessecary and add nothing.You underestimate the “mechanical” nature of most games.

And, if you play normally against enhanced, you will lose all the time.I don’t see all too many people playing chess against software, all the time, for pure enjoment ;)

And again: Why not just push a enjoy button on your implant instead!?

So, disagreed.

“A new ‘network-extracted ontology’ model of the cell”

Turning vast amounts of genomic data into meaningful information about the cell is the great challenge of bioinformatics, with major implications for human biology and medicine

Researchers at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and colleagues have proposed a new “network-extracted ontology” (NeXO) method that creates a computational model of the cell from large networks of gene and protein interactions, discovering how genes and proteins connect to form higher-level cellular machinery.

More so then the fact they are augmented….is the question and curiosity of what will they DO with said-enhancement…that’s where the excitement comes from – and when you get two people with similar enhancements against eachother, the game is still fair and exciting, especially when they are undoubtedly doing things that, once again, the very best unenhanced could never dream of thinking/doing.

Of course, if that doesn’t interest you, their would probably still be games purely for the “natural” which is exciting for that very reason, and probably will still surprise and excite those who have enhanced themselves – as long as the opponents are on fair-grounds, their’s no reason not to enjoy a close and unpredictable game.

Their’s also the very real plausibility of, at least with brain-extenders, of turning them ‘off’ and, at least, emulating how you used to be, so you could play with the “Mosh’s” again. Everything is speculation, but when performance-enhancers start showing up, their will obviously have to be alot of shuffling around and new regulations for those who opt for them, and for those who don’t…..but again, when it comes to games and competition, their is no reason not to enjoy them nor say competition no longer exists — if you are adamant on staying ‘natural’ or watching only those sorts of games, then so be it…..their will probably be an entire genre of games and such directed for that, the same for the augmented.

Or find a nice mix of a couple of them.

In the end, if general purpose implants come into existence, people will have to use them in order to stay competive (if such a thing still matters).

This will allow their use to permeate other parts of life.

Have a nice day;)

Do you like watching calculators?Well, each to their own, I guess^^

About the olympics: I think it could be called gullible if you think that most of the records there are achieved without drugs.

” two ordinary people suddenly playing better then the best unenhanced”

How is that suddenly!?Why don’t you take your laptop and a standard chess program and go out there.If you’d use the program to play a real life opponent, then you’re essentially already “doing” what seems to be so amazing to you.The difference is, it is obvious that you’re NOT the one doing it, because your computer is external to you.

If you think you’re the one playing better than the unenhanced persons, then you’ll probably think you sometimes actively make rain drop from your “skin” (while wearing a rain coat).

It is just another way to feel good about oneself through self-delusion and without any exertion.

Reminds me of fat people falling for all these diet pills^^

Imagine how exciting it must be to watch two people with implants playing – two ordinary people suddenly playing better then the best unenhanced…in contrast, no-implant groups would be equally exciting for the very reason they are unenhanced and have no “cheats”.

So long as the playing field is fair, it’s all good. Imagine Olympics designed only for the enhanced….it would seem like no-implant records get broken all the time.

A question that -imho- makes more sense is: Why use an implant for “non-critical” tasks?

Surely you’d be able to find some will to do something about this?

Btw, This is the fundamental reason chess ceased to be the Drosophila of AI, even if nowadays mundane smartphones are “outwitting” Carlsen or Anand.

No, the real interest in investigating the neurological basis of chess grandmaster play level, IMHO is for better emulation of this process for the rest of us.

Rather than fiddling with preposterous and, as for now, imaginary brain implants, I’m finding more interesting to try to devise new sets of mental exercises (e.g. computer supported variants on blind chess) to converge to the kind of successful neural plasticity grandmasters are achieving.

Actually I did some work on this. Alas, I found no time to complete it yet with a true CBT platform but I’m closely monitoring progresses on related areas like multimodal or gesture UI.

Unless you insert a joy button, all kinds of competition would become boring as hell, with your implants.

If you insert that button, why not push it without reason!?

Did you ever try to play a first-person shooter with others, while everyone used aimbots!?

Ps: Afaik the chess computers don’t use strategies/tactics in the sense you seem to think of.

Instead, they have models/algorithms to evaluate positions and moves.The computers go mechanically through all possible moves (to a predetermined extent, else they’d be doing this for what would feel like forever) on other (virtual) boards, essentially simulating the game while playing with their opponent.At last,they choose the “best” move they’ve found.

Of course, if algorithms executed by some kind of special/general (depending on the implant) purpose computer count as strategies learned, then why do you even bother to play a game!?Your implant would play alone.

Now a synthetic map collected over 5 researchers is not enough of a sampling to achieve definitive conclusions. There is perhaps more variability across a larger sample set of subjects.

For example, it is a little known fact that strong chess grandmasters are achieving their remarkable chess positions memorization ability by subverting the brain area normally used for face recognition (cf. Zsuzsa Polgar’s brain scans when she was memorizing/recollecting chess positions).

More generally, it would be interesting to compare the submaps of laymen vs the ones developed by specialists of the domain under scrutiny.