[throwawayyx96]

Kasparov apparently continues to believe that his expertise in chess transfers to other disciplines. This isn't an uncommon phenomenon, even for people with more serious qualifications in a not totally unrelated field. I also shouldn't forget Hollywood actors - their views on scientific matters and foreign policy carry a lot of weight because they're, ummmm, famous.

For the same reason I'm not rushing over to Amazon to snag Garry's books on how to succeed in the boardroom, I won't be spending any time trying to digest his musings on AI.

[brudgers]

Many many people believe their expertise in one field transfers to other disciplines. Chess expertise is not unique. Even though I generally agree about this particular case, I am aware that I am not an expert on Kasparov or AI. I am also aware that Kasparov is an expert on Kasparov and has practical professional experience interacting with AI's...I mean IBM built AI's specifically tuned for him and Kasparov has had decades to reflect on that experience. He didn't just fall off the turnip truck in Artificial Intelligence land.

[throwawayyx96]

Neither Deep Blue nor the superior chess playing engines running on PC hardware that came afterwards used machine learning. They relied on basic heuristics as humans do to numerically evaluate a position (material, activity, etc.) with the advantage that they could evaluate many more possible move sequences than a human. They also had opening books to avoid losing games from the outset and endgame tablebases to identify forced wins/draws with a small number of pieces on the board. Only recently did Google come out with a chess playing program that is actually ML-based, and it beat the top rated 'traditional' chess engine.

My point being, despite chess being considered a game that requires deep thinking, the use of actual AI in chess is very very new. As far as I'm aware, Kasparov had nothing to do with it let alone a deep understanding of it. He wasn't even involved in the earlier development of computer chess playing programs as they rose to the grandmaster level and eventually beyond his own level (super grandmaster). He along with many others had confidently predicted that machines would never beat humans in chess. So yes, I'm quite reluctant to believe that he has any kind of vision on this topic.

[brudgers]

the use of actual AI in chess is very very new.

  Each generation thinks it invented sex.
  -- Heinlein

[romaniv]

>Kasparov apparently continues to believe that his expertise in chess transfers to other disciplines.

There is a lot of irony in this statement, since he speaks about expertise of AI systems in Chess and other games transferring to more open domains.

[nabla9]

I think there is some transfer learning from chess to politics at least. Kasparov is still alive after the 2010 "Putin Must Go" campaign.

[ekianjo]

> expertise in chess transfers to other disciplines

Some scientists think understanding quantum theories make them sudden experts in economics. I am always amazed at the arrogance displayed where humility should be the norm.

[yequalsx]

I see this phenomenon on HN and Reddit quite a bit. Some expert will publish a paper and there is inevitably a comment of the form, “The conclusion could be a result of...therefore the paper is trash.” People act as though their initial ruminations on a topic qualify them to properly critique an expert's research.

I try to keep in mind that if I could think of a possible objection or insight with a few minutes of thought then the expert is surely aware of this too. I think it’s common for someone who has acquired expertise on one area to think their insights apply to other unrelated areas. For instance Paul Graham has famously bashed philosophers but he certain doesn’t know what he is talking about.