Author: Tony Nichols
Date: 22:49:39 10/20/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 20, 2004 at 20:17:44, Russell Reagan wrote: >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. I also find computer chess fascinating and have no doubt that chess programs will get stronger. When it comes to man vs machine matches I just define things differently. I dont know enough about computers but I know that programmers are not even trying to exhaustively analyze all possible moves. I dont think they will try to in the near future(10 yrs.) either. This is why I think humans will still have chances to beat chess programs. Regards Tony
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.