Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Beauty In Chess..The Differences Between Human And Computer Play

Author: Steve B

Date: 11:09:32 01/20/05


In his  1997 book"Beautiful Mates:Applying Principles of Beauty to Computer
Chess Heuristics",Ben Wallis attempts to program a computer to play chess more
like a "Human"


clearly the way current computer programs play is nothing like the way humans
play

current day programs rely chiefly on brute speed and the ability to analyze and
evaluate millions of nodes per second

while the algorithms employed to evaluate the positions are of course important
,the sheer computing power and speed of current day hardware is chiefly the
reason for the very high ratings achieved within  the last decade

an example of this are the last two Kasparov matches against Deep Blue
in the first match Deep Blue  using 40 processors lost to Kasparov by a margin
of 2 points(although it did defeat him in the first game)
in 1997 Deep Blue Employed 512 processors and as we all know defeated Kasparov

Defining "Human" like play is not so easy

based upon a previous study by Margulies who assembled a panel of 30 players who
were rated over 2000(Elo),
several concepts of "human like" play were created
one such concept was "Beauty"

shown this position :
[D] k7/P1r5/K7/3N4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

90% of the rated experts preferred to deliver the mate by checking with the
Knight at B6 rather then taking the Rook on C7

the idea  of "Using the least amount of Force "was then included in the concept
of "Beauty"

Reuben Fine seemed to agree with this idea when he critiqued Margulies study

the book goes on  to establish several different ideas like this all in an
effort to describe or define human like play
clearly no computer today is programmed to evaluate a position with "Beauty" in
mind

in the end Wallis programmed a computer to solve mating positions using several
"human like" algorithms such as ..deliver mate with least amount of force"
the program was then subjected to a series of mating positions and the results
were compared to see how closely it compared to the panel of experts
an argument can be made that Wallis program exhibits more human like play then
that of todays programs (or at least solved mates more like a human player)

i do not know what became of his program or if even was ever released

the funny thing about all this is..
if i were White in this position and i was playing a rated tournament game..i
would snatch that rook off with my knight and slam it down on c7 with as much
fanfare as  possible..not forgetting of course to bark out...MATE!

now i am certainly no computer..but then again..i am no rated expert either
:))

Best
Steve



This page took 0.02 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.