Author: Graham Laight
Date: 02:51:26 01/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
Hi Walter, Impressive answers! More comments by me below. On January 07, 2003 at 04:04:39, Walter Faxon wrote: >Hi, Graham. > >Your 3 topics, restated: > >(1) It's too late for advanced AI pattern recognition techniques to be used in >computer chess because such programs will never catch up to those using fast >search with simple pattern recognizers. Or at least they won't catch up until >all games are drawn anyway, as per topic (2). > >(2) Increased numbers of draws between humans as ratings increase strongly >suggests that the game of chess is a draw, and computer chess will demonstrate >this in a few years. > >(3) So AI gamers should tackle Go, because its state space is too large to >tackle with anything like brute-force search. > >My take on them: > >(1) If we want a venue to explore advanced AI in chess, let's change the rules >for a new series of competitions: "limited search" computer chess (LSCC). >Humans search about 2 positions per second (Anand claims he searches 5). Well, >our computers today are pretty dumb so let's start with a maximum 100 >positions/second; this can be lowered later. The computer horsepower now used >for searching would be applied to complex pattern recognition and other AI >techniques. All program sources would be made public after each tournament, >like the "RoboCup" robot soccer competitions today. This would serve two >purposes: to prove nobody is searching faster than allowed, and to spread the >wealth of knowledge. This would revitalize academic computer chess: everybody >learns from everyone else and there is no point in competing unless you have a >new idea or a much better implementation. Many more papers would be written. >And any ideas developed could also be adopted by the fast searchers, as >possible. I would LOVE for this competition to happen. If enough people were willing to do this (which, regretfully, is unlikely), then I'd happily take part! >(2) The best over-the-board chessplayers make a _lot_ of mistakes, particularly >allowing small advantages to dissipate. The much lower rate of draws in >top-level correspondence chess suggests that very minor advantages _can_ be >exploited, given enough time, energy and imagination. A super-grandmaster It might suggest it, but it falls far short of proving it. If you go to the SSDF website ( http://w1.859.telia.com/~u85924109/ssdf/ ) and look at the games, you'll see that games between stronger chess programs are more likely to end in draws than games between weaker ones. This, together with the fact that it has been proven that there's no forced win of material in the first 30 moves, proves beyond reasonable doubt that chess is a draw with optimal play. >computer might well prove that the advantage of the first move is enough to win. > Why anyone should otherwise care whether chess is ultimately a win or a draw is >another matter. > >(3) The extreme regularity of Go leaves open the possibility that a much simpler >method of tackling that game might prove successful. But most people involved Anyhting's possible. However, in the game of Warri, one has very few choices of move at each turn. This makes it a "computer friendly" game - and don't the results show it! The very worst Warri programs will EASILY beat the human world champion, wheras in Go, I'm told that even human beginners can beat the very best programs. >in this forum prefer to work on computer chess because we prefer chess. > >So: chess good; but AI better! We need brave visionaries to demonstrate this! Hear hear! -g >-- Walter
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.