Author: Don Dailey
Date: 08:35:05 05/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
>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! My point is that only the weakenesses are noticed. That are many clear problems with computer chess that we are all trying to solve. I never denied this. >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)? It's almost always possible to fix a particular problem if you address it specifically enough (if worst comes to worst, put that single position in the book!) but this is unimaginative and boring. I strongly suspect we might cover some ocmputer weaknesses if we sacrafice some of it's strengths, perhaps making it play more human. I think programs like CSTAL perhaps do this slightly. >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". Everyone believes there is a better way, and people have been working on it. But no one knows what it is. Do you? > 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 ! If we were FORCED to all run on PC-XT's then perhaps we would have made more progress in the software engineering aspect of computer chess. But humans are also very goal oriented. We will tend to do what works. If we could postpone instant gratification, and do some research, we might come up with far better methods. But what I'm really saying here, and this is a sore point with me, is that we have a sure pathway for rapid improvement. What's wrong with this? Harware and software gets better every year and so do our programs. Computers do not play chess like humans. Since the goal is to make them as strong as possible I think we should allow for the possibility that they will not have exactly the strengths and weakness as humans. But many people think the correct approach is to make them play just like humans. I believe this is a form of arrogance because it does not allow an approach that best takes advantage of a computers unique abilities. I'm not saying you are calling for the human approach either (or that you are arrogant.) >> >>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? No it's not. That's exactly my point. We have done some great stuff. But we can always dream of doing better, it's our human nature to always become disatisfied, no matter what good things we do. >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! >... I'm all for more elegant solutions. Do you have any? - Don >>>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.