Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 08:10:05 11/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2002 at 06:36:04, Peter Berger wrote: >On November 02, 2002 at 00:40:45, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On November 02, 2002 at 00:06:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On November 01, 2002 at 22:52:14, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>On October 31, 2002 at 20:01:10, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>>> >>>>>On October 31, 2002 at 17:00:19, Bob Durrett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Solving the general problem of emulating the chess play of "humanity" might be a >>>>>>prohibitively difficult task. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>This has been the "holy grail" of AI since its early days. But the problem is, >>>>>in 25 words or less "we have no idea how a person does what he does when playing >>>>>chess (or anything else for that matter), which makes it _impossible_ to emulate >>>>>what we don't understand." >>>> >>>>Well, Bob H., emulating the chess play of a human is not exactly what the AI >>>>people want to do, is it. They wish to make a carbon copy of a human in all >>>>it's gory details. >>>> >>>>Many orders of magnitude different, I would say. >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>> >>>They really want to emulate human thought processes related to chess, >>>at least for the computer chess/AI purists. But until we know how the >>>human does what he does, emulation is futile, to paraphrase the borg. >>> >>>:) >> >>We do not need to know exactly what humans do to try to emulate them. I believe that's right. Think of the human brain as being a "black box." This black box has inputs, outputs, and memory. If the outputs are the same for a chess engine as the outputs from this "black box," for every possible conceivable combination of inputs and for every possible conceivable history, then the chess engine could be considered to be a perfect emulation of the original "black box." The suggestion here is that "what's IN the box" and "how the guts of the box work" are irrelevant insofar as whether or not you have an accurate emulation. I guess it depends on what the definition of the word "emulation" is. [Again, paraphrasing that ex-US President who didn't know what the definition of the word "is" is.] Bob D. >> >>If the target is to predict human moves then programs can calculate statistics >>about the success of different algorithms in predicting human moves and choose >>the algorithm with the best results. >> >>Uri > > >First you have to decide which kind of human player you want to emulate - a >strong one or a weaker one ? Both is interesting - let's take a human IM or GM >player first. > >You can take a collection of master games and tune your program to emulate to >predict the maximum percentage of human moves, or you can compair different >programs and have a look which program comes closest. > >Will this program play most human-like? > >I don't think so. The problem is not the average move ( computers and human >masters are already difficult to identify when you only look at the majority of >moves), but the one, two or three "special" moves in a game. The moves where >everyone would be sure it is a computer playing - take Fritz's Bf8 in game 2 >against Kramnik for example. As long as you get one or two moves a games like >this one you won't "deceive" anyone. In fact this is also a way to detect >cheaters on chessservers. > >There could be another program that reproduces less human moves but also makes >less "computer moves" - I am convinced it will look much more like a human and >be a better emulation. > >Regards, >Peter
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.