<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple style='word-wrap:break-word'><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div style='border:none;border-top:solid #E1E1E1 1.0pt;padding:3.0pt 0in 0in 0in'><p class=MsoNormal><b>From:</b> extropy-chat <extropy-chat-bounces@lists.extropy.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Adrian Tymes via extropy-chat<br><b>…</b><o:p></o:p></p></div><div><div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…It has for many years been the case that the best chess programs can beat the best human players. So far as I know, at the time the assessment was against humans not on any particular performance enhancing drugs; subsequent improvements would no doubt have them beat even drug-boosted humans by now. <o:p></o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p></div><div><p class=MsoNormal>>…Granted, this performance would use the usual methods to screen out AI enhancements, although there would need to be care not to allow devices explained as drug enhancements but actually there to let an AI watching the match speak to a human player…<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Computer chess play can be set at any level. It can even be made to adjust its own skill level to match the human so that each win about half the time, or a human can arrange to win 2/3 or 1/3. Or personalities can be chosen on Chess.com with an estimated strength. I play the software which claims to be high A/low expert range. As much as I would like to take her word for it on that, I think she is more middle A range, which is about where I am.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>We could get humans to play against such a software player, figure out the human’s approximate strength, then let the human devour the medication or pharmaceutical of choice, play a few more. I confidently predict the meds will not enhance human play, again with the possible exception of caffeine.<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>Note that I am not arguing that such a medication or pharmaceutical cannot exist. I am only arguing that such a chemical has not yet been discovered (again excepting caffeine.)<o:p></o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><p class=MsoNormal>spike<o:p></o:p></p></div></div></div></div></body></html>