Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 15:15:55 02/13/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 13, 2004 at 17:24:26, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 13, 2004 at 16:54:44, Bob Durrett wrote: > >>On February 13, 2004 at 15:33:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On February 12, 2004 at 10:28:32, Bob Durrett wrote: >>> >>>>On February 12, 2004 at 01:59:22, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 11, 2004 at 19:29:19, Bob Durrett wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>If it were possible to obtain a chess-playing program which could be set to some >>>>>>playing strength and also set to emulate human play, then the use of such >>>>>>programs would be used extensively world-wide by serious chessplayers for >>>>>>tournament preparation. I would be one of those. >>>>> >>>>>Deep Sjeng already has those features. >>>>> >>>>>-- >>>>>GCP >>>> >>>>That's great! My only reservation is that I wonder how realistic the emulation >>>>[of human play] is? >>>> >>>>If a GM wishes to use "Deep Sjeng" to emulate the play of human GMs, can that GM >>>>get what he wants? >>>> >>>>If an IM wishes to use "Deep Sjeng" to emulate the play of human IMs, can that >>>>IM get what he wants? >>>> >>>>If an amateur wishes to use "Deep Sjeng" to emulate the play of human amateurs, >>>>can that amateur get what he wants? >>>> >>>>My assumption has always been that realistic emulation of GM play is not >>>>currently possible, emulation of IM play reguires a very strong engine, and >>>>emulation of amateur play may not require a super-strong engine. >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>> >>> >>>The problem is that you can not "emulate" something you don't understand in the >>>first place. And I don't know of anyone that claims to know how a human plays >>>chess... >>> >>>Emulation of a human requires something we don't yet have, and probably won't >>>have for _many_ more years... >> >>Unfortunately, due to my bad choice of terminology, we have a symantics problem. >> >>What is emulation? As is the case for most words in the English language, words >>have multiple meanings. The intended meaning must be inferred from the context. >> Unfortunately, I failed to make the context clear. Sorry. >> >>As explained in another bulletin, my desire, as a user, is to obtain a >>chess-playing machine which plays like a human. Whether or not it thinks like a >>human is of no interest to me, as a user. I wish for the play of a human to be >>emulated and not to emulate the inner workings of human brains. >> >>Sorry about the confusion. : ( >> >>Incidentally, the following definition of "emulation" appears on the internet: >> >>COMPUTER SCIENCE: To imitate the function of (another system), as by >>modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept >>the same data, EXECUTE THE SAME PROGRAMS, and achieve the same results as the >>imitated system. >> >>The problem with specialized fields of study, such as Computer Science, is that >>specialists within that field develop their own specialized meanings for words >>which also have different common meanings in common usage. This is one of those >>cases. >> >>Bob D. > > >OK... now we are on the "same page". Still a tough problem. The difficulty >lies in the fact that a chess program is a collection of "parts". Evaluation. >Search. Search extensions. Etc. You can turn them "up" or "down" but I have >never seen a program that really could act like a 1500. IE you might turn the >evaluation way down, but tactically it will likely be stronger than any 1500 >player on the planet, but it just plays poor positional chess to deflate its >actual rating. Even a plain vanila search has trouble reaching down to the >lower levels, as with no extensions, a program still might average searching to >12-14 plies or more, and 1500 players won't stand a chance. You can tone the >depth down further, but it won't make the kind of blunders a 1500 player will >make. You can add some randomness to the evaluation, but it will will not feel >the same, as it will make a stupid move here and there, but not the same kind of >stupid move a human might make, or not in the typical kind of position... > >It is actually easier to write a _strong_ program than to write one that can be >"dumbed down". Several have "personalities" including Mike's version of Crafty, >but while they reduce the overall strength, the results don't feel "right" to >me, as a human playing other humans... Yes, I had the feeling that it would not be an easy task to produce the desired program/machine. You are confirming that suspicion. Still relying on the seat of my pants, let me hazard a guess that it would be at least possible, but maybe difficult, to create a "black box" which performed chess in a human manner if the guts of that "black box" contained one or more very strong conventional chess engines. I envision additional software/hardware which would essentially utilize the strong engine(s) and direct it's/their activities. [On the other hand, using weak engines might not be possible.] If the engine(s) is/are ten times as strong as the human being whose chess play is to be emulated, then maybe the design task is doable. Let me tell you an interesting little true story about black boxes and emulation. One day, a few years ago, there was a small "black box" [aluminum painted black] which had inputs and outputs. It was not too heavy for a man to hold it in one hand. It was designed to meet a detailed specification, including specifications for performance, mechanical, environmental, thermal, electrical, reliability, and many other specifications. The guts of that cute little black box had analog and rudimentary digital circuitry. It performed flawlessly and there were never any failures. Everybody was very happy since the price tag was irrelevant ["paid for by the Government."] One day, a new thing appeared on the horizon for the first time ever. That new thing was a "microprocessor." Prior to that time there wasn't any such thing. Some bright young lad said "wouldn't it be nice if our little black box could have a microprocessor in it?" The men with the money liked the idea and so it was decided to "modernize" the cute little black box which performed flawlessly. So, it was done. The innerds of one of those little boxes was gutted and a new microprocessor put inside along with a little bit of supporting circuitry. Everybody was estatic! They had "modernized" and it worked. They felt very good because they were in tune with the rest of the World. Extensive environmental, thermal, and electrical testing showed that the new box could not be distinguished from the old version. They weighed the same, had the same inputs and outputs and there was absolutely no way to tell the new from the old except to look at the label glued onto the outside of the box. Their price tags were the same too. Sound familiar? Software can be that way too and so too can computer hardware. Take my PC and gut it and replace the innerds with something else entirely. But if what appears on my computer screen is no different in response to my user inputs, then I, the user, would never know the difference. Replacing one box with an equivalent box could be called "emulation" if the intent were to make the user think that the "old" thing was still there. As a user, the monitor might be hooked up to a humongous mainframe computer, but if it displayed the same thing as my PC, then I would never know the difference. That is the end of my "small story." Now let me return to the topic at hand. I want a "black box" which looks like, smells like, and feels like a human chessplayer. I don't care what's in the box. It could be a computer emulating a human. I wouldn't care. Someday, robots may be indistinguishable from real humans. To make such a robot, it must be programmed to make the mistakes humans make as well as the "good behavior." Doable, but maybe not in my lifetime. : ) 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.