Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:36:36 11/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 20, 2002 at 04:29:36, jefkaan wrote: >On November 19, 2002 at 19:18:56, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>There are "tons" of complicated items of human knowledge. Much is captured in >>large databases of master games. >> >now you are going back to chess; ok, so the question is, >how complicated is the game of chess; obviously its a lot >more complicated than tictactoe, or even checkers or so. > >On the other hand, it's not as complicated as for example >the works of Shakespeare; you can store Hamlet in bits and >bytes on whatever computer, but there is no computer program >which can understand the play. > >The same still holds for storing GM games up to a certain extent; >certain patterns, eg. a fortress are easy to see for a GM, >but not at all by a computer program. >So what i meant was that we need software 'tools' at >a higher level of abstraction. Maybe in some hierarchical >way, informationwise, i mean. There are a lot >of simple tools in computer chess, see eg. the >tools of Paul Onstadt (seems to have deceased). > >More complicated tools are Chessbase and Chess Assistant. >You can search for certain patterns in such programs >(probably Chessbase is better in that, but for >the opening book theory i prefer CA); now the >question is, how the program an engine which >can look forward into certain patterns, simple >example, recognizing the difference and importance >between equal and unequal bishop pairs in the >middlegame, depending on other game characteristics. > >Vincent could tell you a lot about that, but he doesn't :) >However you can also read about chess theory. Eg. modern >chess strategy by J.Watson. Now such ideas are difficult to >absorb in the first place (it takes learning, practising >to see what's most important, etc.); a team of GM consultants >in theory could help maybe, although digesting the best >ideas from their different styles might be difficult, >but then still such ideas are even harder to program >in assembler, C_sharp, bitboards, or whatever. > >In fact, we would need higher level programming languages >for such purposes; that's what i was meaning. Yes, that is interesting. Would you care to elaborate about that higher level programming language? What would be some specific things that language would do [beyond what you said already]? Would the compiler for that language produce machine instructions, or some intermediate product? Bob D. >For a relatively simple game as chess building an expert >system might turn out 'easy', after 30 yrs or so, when >99.9999% of the games will end up as a draw; for Go, it's >already a lot more difficult as a result of a/o pattern >recognition and strategy; i suspect such issues are >the underlying reason for the different views of >Vincent D. and mr Hyatt. > >Only when programmers will be able to make a program which >can translate Ulysses by James Joyce from English to Chinese >they also will be able to beat the best human Go players. >This imho will take a lot of time, decades to beat the >best Go players, and hundreds of years to translate literature. >Making a selfconcious computer, which can learn by itself, >like some sort of SF 'android' will take even longer; >at least thousands of years or so i presume (but i'm always >willing to bet about this for a couple of beers, you know :) >best regards, >jef
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.