Author: stuart taylor
Date: 09:12:56 02/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 15, 2000 at 11:49:41, Dan Ellwein wrote:
>On February 15, 2000 at 10:02:40, blass uri wrote:
>
>>On February 15, 2000 at 09:25:02, Côme wrote:
>>
>>>On February 15, 2000 at 08:53:27, blass uri wrote:
>>>
>>>>On February 15, 2000 at 07:16:12, Côme wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On February 15, 2000 at 06:16:27, blass uri wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On February 15, 2000 at 05:51:31, stuart taylor wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wonder if it will eventually be discovered that chess is not absolute,
>>>>>>>and that a human will therefore always be able to beat a machine by playing
>>>>>>>exactly against the weaker points of that particular machines style-everything
>>>>>>>else being to perfection?
>>>>>>> Maybe chess isn't an exacting art-absolutely?
>>>>>>> Stuart Taylor
>>>>>>
>>>>>>If the machine has no weak points then it is impossible to play exactly against
>>>>>>the weaker points of the machine and there is no reason to assume that it is
>>>>>>impossible to do a machine with no weak points.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Today there is no machine with no weaks points and there is no machine that can
>>>>>>pass the turing test(every machine can do positional mistakes that I do not
>>>>>>expect humans even with 1800 elo rating to do) but it is practically impossible
>>>>>>for most of the humans to play exactly against the weaker points of the machine
>>>>>>because you cannot go practically to the positions that the machine does not
>>>>>>understand.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Uri
>>>>>
>>>>>Hello Uri,
>>>>>I don't agree with you Uri !
>>>>>It's not so hard to play against weaks points of machine !
>>>>>Best Regards
>>>>>Alexandre Côme
>>>>
>>>>Hello Alexandre,
>>>>If it is not so hard then what is the reason that these machines can beat more
>>>>than 99% of the humans with rating above 1600?
>>>>
>>>>There are positions when the machines are stupid and humans knows about them(for
>>>>example programs do not understand fortress positions when one side has a big
>>>>material advantage) but you usually cannot go for these position in
>>>>a practical game.
>>>>
>>>>Uri
>>>
>>>Hello Uri,
>>>Ok you must be stronger than 1600 to play against weaks points of machines. :-)
>>>There are really a lot of positions when the machines are stupid and IMHO
>>>machines will not be never stronger than humans.
>>>Best Regards
>>>Alexandre Côme
>>
>>I am stronger than 1600 and my rating is 2025 but even players with 2300 get
>>less than 50% against the machines.
>>
>>If it was easy to play against the weak points of the machines they could win
>>the machines.
>>
>>I agree that there are a lot of positions when the machines are stupid but
>>I do not agree that machines will never be stronger than humans in these
>>positions.
>>
>>Uri
>
>chess is 'absolute' in the sense that you have a finite amount of space - 64
>squares...
>
>and a finite amount of material - 32 pieces...
>
>finite times finite (usually) equals finite...
>
>computers have not (yet) reached this finite-ness...
What I was wondering was something else. Perhaps there is no such thing as
perfect chess play in the sense that it cannot possibly be beaten by someone who
has prepared himself perfectly to play against the other persons style.
We don't know that yet, but I don't know if many people have ever thought
of it either.
Why for example does the (possibly) greatest ever chess playing entity
Kasparov have to prepare so much for every opponent? Can't he just play perfect
chess?
Could it not be possible that chess is only 99% or 99.999% exact, and
ocassionaly the most perfect chess player-who has not yet existed-can also
lose a game since there might be weak aspects to any style-even at perfection
level?
S.Taylor
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.