Author: Hristo
Date: 23:10:26 05/13/98
Go up one level in this thread
Hello Don. >>>- Don >> >>Don, Fernando, >>I don't know if the current approach to solving the Chess game is >>fundamentally wrong. >>"We are also in alchemy times." Yes Fernando! I couldn't agree more. We >>read those postings about *tweaking* this and *tweaking* that. Well >>after years of *tweaking* it seems like the objective(of the game) has >>been lost. So can we start with redefining the OBJECTIVE. >> >>1. What is the objective of the chess game? >>2. What determines the path to achieving this objective?(the rules?!) >>3. How are the chess-pieces different from each other?(do not apply >>common knowledge, since it will lead us to predetermined and possibly >>incorrect assumptions) >>4. What is the relative *weight*(mass) for each chess-piece in relation >>to one another?(Consider a clear board with only one chess-piece on the >>board at a time) >>5. How do the chess-pieces of the same color relate(interact) to each >>other on the board?(Consider chess board with only white chess-pieces) >>6. How do the chess-pieces of opposite colors relate to each other? >>7. How do we evaluate a chess-position based on the answers to the above >>questions? > >It's pretty fashionable to call for a completely new approach and this >has happened continuously since computer chess began. But I don't >see how your questions are new in any way. Everyone has been trying >to answer these and each program reflects it's own way of answering >them. > >The assumption is that we haven't made any progress and MUST >be doing something wrong. And it sounds great in print. It makes >the proclaimer seem like he has some special insights too and yet >no solution is offered nor is any proof offered that the current >approach >is all wrong. Don, this has nothing to do with fashion! Interestingly enough the internet has become a very *snobbish*, *selfish* place, where even *dorky* looking people like Bob H. take offence(from idiots) and appear as being extremely defensive! I mean absolutely no disrespect to Bob H.!!! I just saw his picture today ... cheers Bob, cheers Don. I don't think "my"(?) questions are new! It seems most of us have forgotten about them and we are more concerned with improving search or pruning algorithm ... another hash table implementation ... null moves to get us closer to the Abyss ... this is why I repeat these questions! The assumption is that we are making progress, just like you said. However precisely because of this progress, the weaknesess of our current approach are becoming more evident! Humans are far from perfect so this is not a criteria for a *perfect* chess program. DB made plenty of mistakes in the last match against Garry Kasparov. This is what is interesting!!! In a winning position the program(computer) makes a *total* blunder. *The game* is a theoretical draw after this mistake. Is there a way to evaluate the position and come-up with one of the correct moves(wthout adding hardware or time)? Is there a pattern of some sort, a signiture that will let us recognise the winning(correct) move?! I believe there is! This does't mean that I have some special insight. I simply refuse to use the common knowledge of "if we just had another ply ... or another 100" ... "we would have solved the problem". There is nothing wrong with brute force. Chess is a *finite* possibility game, so one day your pocket PC or your Watch will be capable of calculating all combinations. In math and physics there is a concept that a formula or a solution is possibly correct if it simply looks pretty(elegant) !!! I'm looking for a pretty solution of the chess game. I believe physics has advanced so much in the last century because the scientists can not test every possible idea ... they were forced to think in-between tests ... some of the test we can not even perform yet !!! In chess this is quite the opposite. Since it is so easy to test *new* or slightly modified ideas. People spend more time testing(tweaking) than thinking ! > >But what has happened with our current "boring" approach >is amazing. We've made incremental (but substantial) progress over >the years in software design and major progress in hardware. Didn't >a computer just beat the world champion in a match? I don't think >this calls for a totally fresh approach, although I certainly would >encourage great new ideas and breakthroughs. > >Now I can already hear some of you saying that hardware does not count. >This is a predjudice point of view based on our view that brute >force is not elegant. But if this is true, then the human brain >is not elegant either since it contains massive (brute force) storage >capabilities and untold billions of parts. Faster hardware IS >elegant and totally legitimate. It just doesn't tickly your fancy. > >So why don't we put things into perspective a little and recognize >the success of our approach. This still leaves plenty of room to >speculate philisophically about breakthroughs and eventually scrapping >our current approach for something far better. It's my hope that >this someday will happen. If it does though, chess may very well >be too limit a domain to relize the full benefit of this new approach. >Perhaps GO or other games and endeavers will be. It's still early to pad ourselves on the back, don't you think? Yes we've done great work to entertain ourselves. If you have a spoon of sand you can make a computer that will count(one at a time) all grains in reasonable time. Maybe somebody else can do it without counting one at a time. This would be a more elegant solution! ... > > >>There is a huge amount of other questions that one can ask. But how >>about if we just answer these questions first! Remember to write down >>all other questions .... >> >>Don, you take too many things as a given ... "to avoid ridiculous lines >>of play" ... "perfect chess" ... > >Huh? Reread my post, this was all speculation, that's what we are >doing >now right? Don !!! I enjoy discussing these topics with you !!! Everything you've said makes sense to me. I just disagree with certain things or I would like to view them differently! So, I thank you for your input !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Best regards. Hristo > >>Imagine we take all chess programs >>currently available and take them out of the *human* context of things, >>meaning we will not evaluate them against humans. Let those programs >>play ... you will see that every program will *lose* at least one game. >>Program that plays *perfect chess* will never lose unless it plays >>against a program that plays *perfect chess*( we don't even know if >>chess is a theoretical DRAW or win for WHITE(black)). > >This is elementary game theory and is nothing new. We don't have to >imagine taking all the chess programs and playing them against each >other because this is already being done. Actually I'm losing you >here, I don't understand your point in this paragraph. I was just thinking of a way to mesure our siccess. It is not just who gets more points, but who doesn't lose a game! > >> >>Cheers. >>Hristo > >But anyway, this stuff is all well and good and I fully support it. >I am doing speculative reasearch on chess too and have in the past. >I think most chess programmers do to one degree or other. I hope >someone does write a great "right brained" chess program that can >write poetry and philosophize while simultaneously playing chess. >It would be a wonderful thing. > >- Don
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.