Author: Jaime Benito de Valle Ruiz
Date: 18:30:31 11/13/03
Ok, no one doubts that humans are much better (at the moment) at evaluating positions. For those who have studied maths -or have a natural intuition towards it-, chaos is the (so-called) study of the logic underlying the supposedly unpredictable outcome of a particular event, which in fact, it is not as random as it appeared. Chess offers virtually infinitely possible combinations, making it an attractive and unattainable game to analyze (ultimately). However, all “logic” used to evaluate this game has little meaning if a tactical combination takes a pawn from you in 11 plies. Rules are far too complex to be reduced to a single algorithm in this case. Inversely, all combinations are pointless if a long-term well studied strategy defeats brute force. We don’t need to recall the so-called horizon-effect! The design of a computer-chess program has been pragmatically reduced to a statistically successful design that blindly uses previous knowledge in situations where brute-force doesn’t work, and makes a smart use of selective brute-force where necessary. The result is a search algorithm capable of punishing the slightest tactical mistake (enough to ensure a victory), and a very systematic optimally-well-tuned algorithm capable of maintaining a game against any opponent, no matter what the position is. Let’s be honest: Chess is not a fully random map, where anything can happen, no matter how good or bad the position looks like: There are trends; I believe that formal chaos analysis should be taking chess as a prime study object. Statistically, there seem to be too many tactical positions easy to miss by a human, so the game remains even all the time. We get tired, we neglect possibilities that we regard as futile, and we are far from being comprehensive. A machine does not. Considering an almost-infinite analysis tree, most human players fall most of the time into one of these tactical traps that will inevitably lead to a loss for them. Assuming a person does no tactical mistakes, this person still needs to outwit the machine strategically in an extreme long-term plan. Here is where people find their limitations: The human brain induces rules and develops new abilities in a remarkable way, but induction is not a logical/full-proof mechanism! A GM surely reaches a point where he can tell whether a game between two useless-players is a victory for one side, or the other. This GM is using previous knowledge in an inductive/holistic way, no doubt, and his – is prediction will be most likely nearly perfectly accurate most of the time! The problem is that these GM are basing their assumptions upon some past assumed knowledge, and this knowledge has never been systematically put under test. Machines have found unexpected outcomes from old positions (specially with the use of tablebases), and very often, they offer unexpectedly resistance against positions that were supposed to be lost. Machines are showing us logically sequenced paths that we never considered in certain positions where any small variation can decide a game (tactical ones). They have opened new ways of thinking about chess: a dull and scary one, actually. People now know that it doesn’t matter how “good” they play now, because chances are that even they won’t be able to keep a perfectly-non blunder tactical game all the time, and the machine will take profit of it at some point, unbalancing the game and massacring you! Keep yourself away from this danger… and you’ll have to find a way of outwitting a long-term plan, previously considered by the machine several plies ago, that will surely lead you to a drawish position (if you’re lucky). Let’s be fair: If you want to systematically beat a good machine, you have to be not only tactically perfect, but also able to strategically outperform your engine to a point where its evaluation algorithm (and its extensions) does not detect any treat! We’re asking too much. Surely some GM can do this…. sometimes. For the rest of us, it’s like a battle against a calculator to see who can to a root 27 of 0.223254242. Forget it! Chaos guarantees some of these unexpected “lines of play” where the score can be successfully inverted because of a 20/30 plies horizon effect, but statistically discourages players who attempt to beat computers. Let’s face it: We’ll never get a root 33.4 of 0.2324242 faster than a calculator, as well as we’ll never run faster than a 1200 cc motorbike. This doesn’t mean that we cannot give a calculator a problem that it cannot solve, or that we cannot climb a mountain faster than a motorbike (not design for climbing). I’m not interested in being able to hit a screw harder than my hammer! Chess computer machines have become very efficient in finding complicated routes that lead to a material victory, and strong enough in challenging GM in non-tactical positions. The only fun we can get is betting about their strength or by finding positions that we “assume to be easy” but machine cannot see at first sight”. I’m not good at chess myself, but I don’t plan to waste my life trying to outwit a “chess-calculator” at positions where my chances are close to nothing. Kasparov is a person; an amazing player, no doubt. But he cannot keep a 100% reliability in tactical moves against a computer (or other player), and this makes him vulnerable to the machine-trap. Any little-tiny mistake, and he’ out!! IMHO he kept a decent/balanced game against Fritz, until he neglected this move… Even one of my old-engines (with no Hash tables or Futility pruning) happily takes that pawn and gives a score of nearly +2.00!!! That’s a human blunder. We’re likely to make them… sooner or later! These computer-human games are just getting boring to me: Unless the human plays a confidently-non blunder-game from the start to the end, there is no fun to watch!! If the person is so confident/so precise, still has to find a long-long term strategically well design plan to beat the machine. Statistically speaking, chances are quite low. Why do we keep worrying about human-machine war at chess? I no longer care about Motorbike-human speed championship!! Are we going to forget about adding or multiplying just because calculators can do it faster and more accurately? NO. Are we going to loath chess just because they always win? No way! It still amuses us! Are we going to stop running just because our old car is faster than we can be? What about writing faster than a printer? Life is not just a competition! As computer-chess fans, we find this hobby intellectually and challenging amusing, because the ultimate algorithm for perfect chess is still far to be found. There is still room for opinion and human intuition… as well as “programmer-skills” rewards for some of us! Chess is still a formal space where the number of solutions can be described as a finite (huge number) sequence, and formal proofs can be possible. I think it’s time to change our philosophy about chess: We cannot win in certain positions unless we’re infallible (and no human is). But we can still improve the game by suggesting new innovations and make it more interesting! Whenever I see a GM-machine game, I look attentively at the “expected” score (in my case usually Shredder), and I wonder about their game… if the score suddenly goes up to 1, more than 1, or even more for the machine, I know that the “human” has just blundered. No way back! The machine will win here! I’ll be very surprised if this evaluation is flawed!!! Whenever this score remains negative against the machine, I still believe there is a (small) chance for the human side; but it is still an extremely improbable fight against a “calculator” that will make no tactical mistake. In mathematical terms, the chance to outwit the machine in a deeply-comprehensive analysis space such as chess, becomes smaller and smaller as plies move on! I’ve seen Kasparov-Fritz games. I’m not good at chess, but I have several chess-engines helping me to understand. Most moves were nearly forced. The situation was “arguably” better for either side, no matter which one. Let’s enjoy our debates about computer chess programs! There’s too much dogma here! Who cares about human-computer supremacy? (My pocket calculator can beat you all for sure at simple calculations) Let’s enjoy the chaotic unexpected result of computer vs computer results. Regards, Jaime
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.