Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 17:17:44 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 19:06:31, Tony Nichols wrote: >>If the contest is to see who can do arithmetic calculations with the greatest >>accuracy and efficiency, then we would indeed bow down to calculators as they >>are clearly superior at this task. >Why do you think we dont have these competitions. There is no point. Just as >there is no point in seeing who remembers theory better computer or man. The quesiton was not whether it would be interesting to have a competition between humans and computers in the future, but whether or not humans will even be able to hope for a draw in the future. I agree that having a race between a human on foot and a dragster isn't very interesting, but that wasn't the question. The question was (similar to): Will any human be able to beat the dragster in the future? The answer to that question is no (assuming no freak circumstances such as a meteor hitting the dragster during the race). >Yes! I don't think computers play = to the best human players and are certainly >not better. They will get better but I think they have a long way to go. By the >way speed is not important when the program is not even analyzing. What is >purley mathematical about opening books and endgame tablebases? We dont use >calculators with built in solutions. They have to compute each equation, so when >we talk of chess programs let it be that part that computes. We're not talking about calculators, and even if we were I think it would be perfectly reasonable for a calculator to precompute results for faster execution during the contest. Also, computers have absolutely used databases to speed up computation. People used to precompute the values for sin() and cos() and look them up from a small database (lookup table) instead of computing the value each time. People used to store small prime numbers instead of computing them on the fly. Today it is probably faster to just compute sin(), cos(), and small primes from scratch each time you need that data. One day it will be faster to run a game tree search than to lookup the result in a database. Maybe not even in our lifetime, but one day. >I understand this and it makes me sad. To think someone could be so involved in >chess and not be a player is weird. I suppose some people use calculators as >paperweights, but this is not their best use! Consider my situation. I play chess, but not very competitively. I realize that for me to be a strong player it would require a great deal of work (more than someone who has a natural ability for the game). I think I could achieve a somewhat strong level (expert or weak master) with a lot of work, but at this point other things like work, school, and family relationships are more important. Even if I did become a strong player, I would have to work hard to maintain that level of play, and at any time I may have to take a few months and devote myself to something else (school, work, taking care of ill family members, etc.). So instead I work on a chess program. My goal has very little to do with being a better chess player. I just enjoy learning about chess programming and competing against other chess programs. If I have to take a few months off, my chess program doesn't lose its playing strength and I can continue working on it. >If we assume that chess is 100% mathematical then why does the computer need the >crutches of opening books and endgame tablebases? Surely modern computers can >compute better than humans. Let this be the competition and I claim humans are >far superior to computers! Many famous players including Lasker and Botvinnik >have stated that chess is not a purely mathematical game. I dont know your field >of expertise but this is from a mathematician and an engineer. The fact that we cannot compute some mathematical result does not mean that it is not mathematical. Finding a prime number with a trillion digits is a mathematical problem, but currently we can't compute such a thing consistently (maybe someone could get lucky and find one). One day we will be able to compute trillion digit primes on our home computers, probably within the next century. So theoretically, chess is a mathematical game. From a practical view it is not possible to run the computation yet. I guess the debate is whether or not we will ever have the computing power. > I think humans will always have chances because computers are not even close to >fully analyzing every possible move so they have to use positional evaluations >just like humans. If you've seen some of the bad evals. programs make you might >agree with me. Right now computers are not clearly better than the best humans. There is evidence that this may be true now, but it isn't completely clear. They are not dominating the best human players yet, that is for sure.
This page took 0 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.