Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 14:53:30 10/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 27, 2002 at 16:06:27, Knut Bjørnar Wålberg wrote: >Which actually brings up a question: Is it possible to make a computer program >that is (much) better strategically than a human? Strategy is just deep tactics. If we could search the entire game tree, chess programs would be perfect strategists, and perfect tacticians. We can't search the whole game tree, but as computers get faster, the deeper search will produce more and more "strategic" knowledge. In fifteen years from now, computers may see 6 ply deeper than they do today. They will create attacks and defend in subtle ways that can be distinguished from "strategy" only by looking at the score of the PV. The human won't see that the kingside attack that just started is going to win by force, for example. >I'm wondering because to me it seems like: >strategic understanding means grasping a lot of concepts >=> better players know more concepts and how to utilize them >=> the best players know and use almost all the concepts >=> a strategic super-computer should know even more > >but how can you implement a piece of knowledge that no human is aware of? I >guess with *real* AI a computer could bring completely new knowledge to chess. Endgame tables have already shown grandmasters some ways to defend/win certain positions, and I've read about some ending that computers can actually win with table bases, but where there is no pattern that is easy enough for humans to follow. I don't remember which, though. >But back to SW/HW. Obviously, if a lot more chess knowledge into a program, >you'd probably want faster HW as well, so you can still keep up the ply depth. > >Knut Bjørnar Wålberg
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.