Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 10:18:23 12/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 19, 2002 at 11:59:12, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 19, 2002 at 11:38:57, Bob Durrett wrote: > >> >>The big challenge to all "serious" chess programmers seems to be to thoroughly >>trounce the top grandmasters. That seems like a worthy goal, doesn't it? >> >>Barring some unforseen "miracle breakthrough" in chess engine design, will we >>have to wait for the computers to get fast enough? Waiting for the silicon >>monsters to solve our problems for us is the "chicken" way out. > >Why? That is one of the benefits of computers in general. They naturally get >faster each year. Problems that couldn't be solved in real-time 50 years >ago can be solved in real-time today. Traversing a game tree is a big task. Better pruning. >You can either traverse the tree serially as a chess engine does, or do it >mystically as the human mind does. But since we don't know how the human mind >plays chess, emulation is impossible. The recent articles in Nature Magazine really make your point! The much touted "rational thought processes" may have very little to do with chess. >And brute-force methods are still making >inroads... Well, that seems terribly mundane to me. : ) > >> >>Rolf seems to suggest that the problem is that the top GMs can think better than >>the chess engines. > >They are _different_. They learn in complex ways. Computers do not, yet. >They match complex patterns quickly, computers do not, yet. They can >generalize from a specific issue to similar positions, computers do not, >yet. I like the sound of your "yets." Would you care to elaborate on them? Also, could there be NEW alternative ways for the chess engines to match the mental prowess of the humans? Maybe it's not necessary to "learn in complex ways," "match complex patterns quickly," and "generalize from a specific issue to similar positions." Those things sound too much like emulation. You have already said, "Emulation is impossible." Maybe there are better ways for chess engines to think. It's results that count. [True?] But don't misunderstand. I'm not saying those things are bad. I just wonder whether or not ANYBODY fully understands those silicon monsters. Trying to program them to emulate human thought may be misguided, if not impossible. [Forgive me, all AI people!] It seems much better to utilize their "natural talents" directly. Anyway, emulators are mundane too. : ) Bob D. > > >> >>Assuming he's right, what can be done to make him wrong again? >> >>Maybe the unsolved problems associated with planning, "positional positions," >>and intelligent maneuvering in quiet positions are worthy problems? >> >>Maybe they, or similar problems, should be the focus of future efforts at >>innovation? >> >>On the other hand, there is still the irritating fact that pruning schemes are >>still not nearly as good as one might wish. If there are any REAL innovators >>out there, maybe they can make some sort of "pruning breakthrough." Hopefully, >>that would solve all of the problems of the chess programming world. >> >>Bob D.
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.