Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

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

Author: Roger D Davis

Date: 17:09:49 01/20/05

Go up one level in this thread


On January 20, 2005 at 17:21:26, Steve B wrote:

>>Computer play probably has a lot of beauty in it...it's just that we have human
>>brains, and those brains constrain our appreciation of beauty. Is beautiful
>>chess always winning chess? Is winning chess always beautiful? If winning chess
>>is always beautiful, then it would seem that GM-level programs must be producing
>>a lot of beautiful chess these days.
>
>the book tried to define beauty with a set of strict rules
>one was the one i mentioned
>other's  were:
>deliver mate with weakest piece possible
>use the least number of pieces to effect the mate
>etcetc
>
>by polling the 20 rated experts these  rules were observed and then incorporated
>into the algorithm
>
>the author was  not making a subjective definition of beauty
>only using that term to describe the set of rules that humans follow when
>contemplating their next move
>
>his program closely mimicks how these 20 experts would come uo with a mating
>move
>
>no current day program employs these sorts of rules in evaluating a position
>
>Best
>Steve

By polling the 20 experts, the author created a definition of beauty that was
(presumably) authoritative and consensual. However, it was still a definition of
beauty that was evolved from the human brain. Unfortunately, we don't have
access to the minds of other sentient creatures, who might well define beauty in
another way.

The relationship between beautiful chess and winning chess is a philosophical
dispute, thought-provoking, but with no firm answer. My own personal opinion is
that beautiful chess isn't necessarily winning chess. Computers seek to play
winning chess, regardless of aesthetics. The fact that human beings see a
particular move as beautiful means nothing in the brutal logic of the chess
tree, but instead reflects the biases of our own neural networks, which often
over-emphasize heuristics because they just don't have the horsepower to do
anything else.

It's the ugly move that wins the game. If you can make the ugly move, you can be
a champion.

Roger



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.