Author: Peter Berger
Date: 13:43:10 11/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2002 at 10:46:58, Bob Durrett wrote: >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. >>> >>>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. > >Maybe the "ultimate test" of how human-like a chess engine is would be to let it >play as a human at ICC. If the "Cheater Cops" at ICC could not detect the >non-human nature of the chess engine, then the engine could be declared "human." >: ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) > >Bob D. > That's a Turing test and there is nothing funny about it IMHO. I don't know how good and professional the "Cheater Cops" at ICC do their job but if you really managed to let everybody believe that your chessengine is a human player of course this would mean that your engine really plays human-like IMHO. 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.