Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 04:56:28 01/07/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 07, 2003 at 04:04:39, Walter Faxon wrote: >On January 06, 2003 at 12:49:56, Graham Laight wrote: > >>Human chess is all about pattern recognition. Computers achieved their strength >>though sheer speed. >> >>I doubt if there's time to do computer chess the correct way now - by the time a >>pattern recogniser would be able to get up to the required strength, all games >>will be a draw (this will happen at about 3500 elo - see >>http://math.bu.edu/people/mg/ratings/Draws.jpg . Moreover, Rudolf Huber has >>proven that there's no forced win in the first 30 moves. IMO, it is proven >>beyond reasonable doubt (though not actually 100% proven) that there's no forced >>win in ANY number of moves - chess is a draw). >> >>Perhaps those of us who believe that the best AI methodology is a database of >>patterns from which to retrieve the closest matches to the patterns in the >>current position should move on to Go - where the choices of moves on each turn >>are sufficiently large to be entirely safe from the number crunchers in the >>foreseeable future. >> >>-g > > >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). > Nonsense. computer chess will improve slower and slower. >(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. again you are wrong. computer chess will never demonstrate this. > >(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. > >(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 >computer might well prove that the advantage of the first move is enough to win. no computer will EVER be able to prove that. not in 10000 years. a prove would require a 32-piece tablebase. hope you know what that means. > 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 >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! > >-- Walter
This page took 0.01 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.