Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:40:43 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 13:32:01, Russell Reagan wrote: >On April 20, 2002 at 08:36:39, Mike Hood wrote: > >>After the Smirin vs Shredder match voices became loud saying "Today's computer >>programs may be brilliant at chess tactics, but they are still weak at chess >>strategy". I agree with this statement, except for the word "still". My >>contention is that it is not possible to give computer programs any strategical >>understanding whatsoever. > >Then your contention is wrong. > >>Everything is based on positional evaluation and >>search depth. If the search depth is deep enough, a computer may make a series >>of moves that simulate a strategy, but that's all it is: a simulation; a fake. > >Not really. How do you think a grandmaster forms his strategy? Do you not think >that he looks ahead to some depth, analyzing different lines? A computer does >the same thing. It looks ahead at many lines. The only difference is that >computers look at MANY more lines than a grandmaster does. The GM is better at >pruning off lines that are inferior, so the computer "wastes" a lot of it's >time, but it's really fast so it can afford to look at almost everything. You >say it's a "fake", a simulation. Yes, a computer simulates looking many moves >ahead, but then again so do humans, if you want to get technical. They don't >actually move the pieces on the board, that's illegal. They simulate moving the >pieces on the board in their head. So if computers strategies are "fake", then >so are human's strategies. > >>Strategy is all about looking at the board and planning a series of moves to >>achieve a goal, whether it's a positional improvement or material gain. > >By your own definition of strategy, computers DO make up their own strategies, >and they have done so for decades. > >>Computer >>programs don't do this. All they do is look at the current position and choose >>the next move. That's all. > >That is incorrect. They do just what your definition of strategy describes. They >look at the board and plan a series of moves that lead to a goal. Sometimes that >goal is positional because it was programmed into the evaluation function, or >sometimes it was material gains the program was after, but it does exactly what >you described as strategy. > >Did you put any real thought into this at all? > >Russell Russel true planning is one thing a computer can't do, in any coventional sense, as the GM or even a master is looking at _ideas_ and may have multiple levels to the plan, computers don't have ideas, or make multi-level plans. However with good evalution some positional understanding and very accurate tactical play they compensate for this deficit. The GM does more than search, more than choose what are the best squares or outpost/s etc. They formulate _true_ plans that in some cases have very little to do with searching, but _ideas_ which although are not calculated with any precision like a machine, can reach a position 30 moves away and the computer suspects nothing as it can't guess or use intuition like a human. (IE Smirin-Shredder) It certainly won't have a series of ideas that may result 25-35 moves away. OTOH as I already mentioned they do see enough, quite often to make up for what today, is impossible for a machine. They simply don't think, and a human must! The human has many weaknesses to exploit and so do programmes. But thought and ideas, intuition, understanding in the strict sense is reserved for humans at this time. It needs a mind! In the future when you're between 45-70 years old computers may very well have minds, but not today. Although machines when fast enough, have pattern recognition(to some extent I think they do) it may be possible to do all these things in an artifical way. Too some extent Deep Blue II did with 24 hrs. non-stop access and calculation to a vast array of databases AFAIK. If I'm not mistaken, it had 3 million lines running into it where it could draw upon immense information! It of course had every tournament game Kasparov ever played. Regarless, it didn't think. Nor do any programmes/hardware combination at this time. It's not really _true_ A.I. I think this is what Mike must of meant? Comps. do alot and play chess, but differently than us. Similar in many ways but still not the same, and planning no matter how much it appears they do is not real. Illusion only. But still reaches often, not always similar or even the same result. Tactics and position, but tactics mostly do the trick for the machine. Hence closed positions are bad for computers, but not humans, at least not as bad for the humans;) Side Note, I hate closed positions myself, lol! Ask your computer next time;) Anyways, there are still many games where computers are lost for what to do and the human suffers this far less except for open positions in the middlegame. It's what computers do best, scan the open board, lines, diagonals and calculate like mad. This is scary for the human!:o) Terry No I didn't waste alot of time analyzing this:o) I drew from experience, knowledge and I hope a little understanding!?;) Terry
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.