Author: Ed Schröder
Date: 00:15:01 08/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 17, 1999 at 02:14:37, Will Singleton wrote: >On August 16, 1999 at 12:59:10, Ed Schröder wrote: > >>>Posted by Will Singleton on August 16, 1999 at 02:58:46: >>> >>>>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? >> >>No typo :-) >> >>>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. >> >>This is all very true. >> >>>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. >> >>I disagree. >> >>If a computer beats a GM the computer is simply stronger. I consider stronger as >>something else than understanding chess. >> >>>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? >> >>I also believe that in 10-15 years a PC is able to beat the strongest human on >>earth. >> >>Doing so this doesn't automatic mean the computer does understand chess >>better than the human. >> >>This is what I mean with my 100 year statement: Look at any GM-COMP game >>and you will see that the human ALWAYS gets the initiative. The computer always >>has to defend. Why? Because the GM knows how to play chess. The GM >>understands chess, the computer can not match the feeling for (long-term) >>strategy, the feeling for certain positional long-term sacrifices etc. etc. >> >>What usually happens is that GM's throw away the gained advantage by >>overlooking smart, deep and sometimes very surprising defences of the >>computer. >> >>IMO the current struggle in GM-COMP can also be redefined as: >> >>"Strong understanding of chess + a not optimal search algorithm (many leaks)" >> >> versus >> >>"Average understanding of chess + a perfect search algorithm (hardly any leak)" >> >>IMO a search-depth of 11-13 plies plus decent human-alike or anti-human chess >>knowledge is sufficient to beat GM's to 2600. >> >>Maybe 14-16 plies is enough to beat GM's to 2700 and maybe 17-20 plies is >>enough to catch Kasparov. Who knows... >> >>But in the end the human knows how to play chess. A computer will never >>find moves like Ra1 (Fischer) or Rxd4 (Kasparov) and and and... Ok, maybe >>in 100 years :-) Just try this (old and simple) one. >> >>5rk1/5p2/pr2pPp1/Pp1pP1Pp/1PpP3P/K1P5/8/8 w - - am a5b6; >> >>Ed Schroder >> >>>Will > >You make good points, and I cannot argue with them. I will say, however, that >we cannot fairly compare a human's approach to chess with the prevailing >computer approach. The human does what is best for him, and the computer does >likewise. The human is better at patterns and intuition, the computer >calculates better. So, in the future, the computer's approach will prove more >effective. I agree. >So, I agree that a computer cannot match the GM's understanding of the game, >from our perspective, and may not do so until neural nets or other approaches >become feasible. But from the computer's perspective, the GM will soon be >unable to match *it's* understanding of the game. This isn't just semantics. Right, computers do it in another way. Ed Schroder >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.