Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 00:03:28 01/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2005 at 02:15:00, Russell Reagan wrote: >On January 20, 2005 at 14:09:32, Steve B wrote: > >>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 > > >Some call it "beauty". I would call it "foolish". I'd prefer the safer, smarter >way :) > >If the "pretty" way fails 1 time out of 100 (i.e. the human overlooks something >while trying to be "cute"), when there was a safer, clearer choice, it's not >worth it IMO. You can either kill him with kindness or simply knock him out his chair by taking the rook; the bottom line is the same MATE :-) Jorge
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.