Author: Will Singleton
Date: 22:52:27 08/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1999 at 03:19:25, Dave Gomboc wrote:
>On August 16, 1999 at 02:58:46, Will Singleton wrote:
>
>>On August 15, 1999 at 04:47:50, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>
>>>GM's are by far superior when the topic is understanding the game of chess
>>>and that will remain for a very long time and maybe even after 100 years.
>>>
>>
>>Ed,
>>
>>It's great to see these games on ICC; I really like your initiative. I must
>>disagree with your statement above, however. 100 years? Did you perhaps mean
>>10 years?
>>
>>10 years ago, you were using perhaps a 68020 at 25 mhz. You are now running at
>>600 mhz, effectively about 30x faster (considering cache etc). In 10 years we
>>might have 20 ghz machines, which means that a 3 minute think today will take 6
>>seconds then. This is not even considering advances in chess algorithms, which
>>will certainly occur.
>>
>>So, I must take issue with your concept of "chess understanding," since that can
>>only be measured by wins and losses. If a computer beats a GM, by definition it
>>has better understood the game.
>>
>>In 10 years, it's clear that no human will be able to contend with commercial
>>programs running on off-the-shelf hardware. Since you have a propensity for
>>gambling, would you like to make a wager on that?
>>
>>Will
>
>Perhaps it depends on what one means by "understanding".
>
>If it is enough for the machine to say "This position is worth x, see? i can
>show you the 1x10^12 nodes that i looked at to prove it if you like.", then 10
>years may be reasonable.
>
>If the machine is required to explain why a position is good or bad to humans in
>a way that is meaningful to us ("Nf5 applies terrible pressure to the kingside,
>and gf would be refuted tactically by Bxf5! Be8 Rag1+ with an insurmountable
>attack"), then 100 years may be reasonable.
>
>Dave
The two explanations you give are not much different, if at all. But humans and
computers approach the problem differently, which results in different kinds of
understanding. Which is real, or better? Since chess is ultimately about
winning, and not how the game is played, the computer has the superior approach.
It will simply out-calculate the human, in time. And, the point is, that is
all it can do. It cannot mimic the human approach. Therefore, we shouldn't say
that our perception of understanding is better than the computer's, simply
because we can relate to our method. Especially if we lose.
Will
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.