Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 15:12:26 11/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2002 at 16:43:10, Peter Berger wrote: >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 I know the Turing Test is Sacred among AI people. It is absolutely taboo to say anything bad about it. However, it is fatally flawed! It falsely assumes that the human mind is the ultimate thinking machine. Typical of the human ego to think that! Soon, perhaps in ten years or so, chess engines will be clearly superior to humans. Then, insofar as chess is concerned, the Turing Test will have to be modified to use the top chess engine as the reference to which everything else is compared. Humans will be regarded nothing better than defective thinking machines. They really are! Always have been. Sadly, people see themselves only through rose colored glasses. Incidentally, my "smilies" had more to do with the "Cheater Cops" and their foolishness than to do with the Turing Test. As an aside: Would you say that a lightning bolt did not exist if no one saw or heard it?
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.