Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 07:23:47 02/12/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2004 at 23:34:09, Paul Doire wrote: >On February 11, 2004 at 22:57:52, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On February 11, 2004 at 22:07:39, David Dory wrote: >> >>>On February 11, 2004 at 20:36:38, Paul Doire wrote: >>> >>>>Hi Bob, >>>> >>>>My two cents for what it is worth. It would seem clearly if this objective could >>>>be obtained...it would have been obtained....coulda woulda??!! >>>>Some say Junior emulates human play, some say others emulate human play. >>>>AI is a key ingredient, and IMHO true AI would be aware of the environment, >>>>the setting, the pressure...just like a human would be...it would not be >>>>impervious to the surroundings like the pile of silicon that it is. As you >>>>already know, the strength of the programs is in sheer calculations. >>>>GM's select candidate move through a learned process...eliminating what appears >>>>to be futile "trees". They certainly do this far better than computers. >>>>That is the weakness of computers, as I am also sure you already know. >>>>It appears to me that even the newest batch of programs "newfound strength" >>>>comes from an ability to be more selective in its tree..i.e. they are gaining >>>>knowledge. >>>>But, unfortunately they cannot think, and are at the mercy of the current >>>>"state of the art" in the best way to mathematically eliminate "wrong moves". >>>>It is a start most certainly, but it is still based on calculations...and raw >>>>processing power still rules..i.e. Crafty in CCT-6. Some are smarter than >>>>others due to things that I will not pretend to understand fully...null moves, >>>>futility pruning, selectivity... and much more beyond my grasp. >>>>I am not a chess programmer, just a chess enthusiast who loves to test those >>>>engines and their progress. I have been watching and playing these engines for a >>>>little while and they do not understand anything except to play their books and >>>>to follow up with a mathematical examination of what is appropriate for the >>>>situation. They will still make the same mistake over and over...albeit >>>>"learning" has certainly helped that from being so obnoxiously obvious. >>>>We are still so far from this goal it is almost scary. Geez we are the ones in >>>>charge ...right? Right now to this enthusiast it doesn't appear on the horizon >>>>for your wish to become a reality. It sort of reminds me of when Professor Hyatt >>>>states time and time again just how strong a human GM really is. Computers make >>>>up for what they lack in "humanness" by brute force. There has even been talk >>>>about when "brute force calculating power is strong enough ..hardware wise," >>>>that it won't be necessary to have to be so selective in the searches...just >>>>CRUNCH and we will win. That is not human play...we are so far away...and I am >>>>rambling now. >>>>I enjoy your posts, and your exuberance for your beliefs..thank you for your >>>>contributions to CCC. >>>>Regards, >>>>Paul >>> >>>Claude Shannon discussed selective and brute force methods of searching the game >>>tree in his article in 1950. Selective search has been tried, but the success of >>>Northwestern's CHESS4.x showed the pitfalls - it took lots of computation to >>>make selective searching work at all, and all too often, the selection process >>>discarded the brilliant move, along with the dumb moves. >>>As you know, if a pawn is moved just one square sometimes, an amazing move can >>>be reduced to sheer stupidity. >>> >>>Trying to teach a computer to recognize and exploit long range planning, while >>>still tactically playing strong chess, just hasn't been possible, so far. >>>Peasant could find reasonable goals (and moves), for it's pawn playing program, >>>but never could play the whole game, strongly. >>> >>>Edward's Symbolic is the only program I know of trying to integrate planning >>>into it's coding, rather than strictly tactics. It will be very interesting to >>>see what Steven Edward's can do with it. >>> >>>Slate and Atkin's (CHESS's authors), both wanted to create a program that would >>>really understand chess, using a language embedded with chess terms, but that >>>didn't (and still doesn't) exist. They felt the lack of more sophisticated tools >>>(languge) was the biggest reason their program had to settle for being just a >>>tactical monster with a general knowledge of long term goals which stretched >>>beyond it's search horizon. >>> >>>They knew they could improve their evaluation, and make it appear more "human >>>like" by just refining it with countless hours of testing and revision, but were >>>put off by the sheer work required. >>> >>>I'm pleased that our brains are not so easily imitated. :) >>> >>>David >> >>I see no motivation to force chess engines to mimic mental process in the human >>brain. >> >>All that is "necessary" it that the play of the engines be indistinguishable >>from the play of humans. What happens inside the engine is of no interest at >>all to the user if the user is playing practice games in preparation for an >>upcoming tournament. What the user needs in that case is to emulate the human >>opposition he/she is likely to face in the upcoming tournament. >> >>Humans do strange things in their brains. Computers need not be concerned about >>such things. >> >>Human games can be characterized statistically and a statistical model created >>by the programmer to represent the human play. Then all that remains to be done >>is to create software which will produce outputs satisfying that model. Of >>course, the satisfying the probabilities of committing certain types of errors >>is part of that. >> >>NOTHING IS IMPOSSIBLE ! ! ! ! [Never has been and never will be.] >> >>All it takes is for a programmer to change gears or take a different path. >> >>Bob D. > >All it takes?? Since you are not concerned with what goes on in the >internal workings of the engines, all it will take is sheer calculation once >again. Your objective must concern the internal working of the engines...it is >there that your goal will be achieved. It would appear to me...(and maybe me >alone) that the only way to achieve your objective would be to require humanlike >thoughts, along with plans and intellect. Once again we are not at this paradigm >(to overuse an already badly overused term, if not now..once upon a time). >Unless I am missing something..which is entirely possible(human haha), >it appears the path, to this neophyte, would be to be humanlike in its thinking. >If this awesome calculative ability could somehow be coupled with with the human >intuition (from human knowledge base...I.E GM's). Then opening books themselves >would become a thing of the past...between awesome calculation powers and human >intuitiveness, they would "feel" their way and win with their awesome tactical >abilities. >Your many posts in this regard are certainly admirable goals to achieve, but my >point to your post is that I do not feel that "it doesn't matter" >what the engines do "inside"...surely it does. Additionally, should the day come >when it really doesn't matter "how they think", as long as they think like >humans, then we will really have passed into a new paridigm. >Regards, >Paul It is a matter of perspective. For the programmer, "what happens inside" is all-important. For the user, "what happens outside" is all-important. : ) 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.