Chess
-
What do you think who is winner finally? computer or human I believe we can think but computer can guess(probability)
WhiteSky
-
What do you think who is winner finally? computer or human I believe we can think but computer can guess(probability)
WhiteSky
Depends on who the human is.
God Bless, Jason
DavidCrow wrote:
It would not affect me or my family one iota. My wife and I are in charge of when the tv is on, and what it displays. I do not need any external input for that.
-
What do you think who is winner finally? computer or human I believe we can think but computer can guess(probability)
WhiteSky
WhiteSky wrote:
I believe we can think but computer can guess
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing. It involves analyzing a set of options. The reason I say it doesn't involve thinking is because chess is ultimately a purely analytical process. Thinking is broader than that, in my opinion, though I think I'm getting myself in deep water with some of the other thinkers around here. :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh Smith -
What do you think who is winner finally? computer or human I believe we can think but computer can guess(probability)
WhiteSky
WhiteSky wrote:
who is winner finally?
Finally... as in all the centuries in the future? the computer. Tomorrow? depends on the human.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
WhiteSky wrote:
I believe we can think but computer can guess
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing. It involves analyzing a set of options. The reason I say it doesn't involve thinking is because chess is ultimately a purely analytical process. Thinking is broader than that, in my opinion, though I think I'm getting myself in deep water with some of the other thinkers around here. :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithMarc Clifton wrote:
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing.
Very true. Chess has a brute-force solution that always wins, and that is analyzing all possible moves until end-game, from the current state of the board. In most cases this is unreasonable. Most computers go n-moves into the future to reduce "thinking time" which also reduces reliability of the analysis. When we achieve a computer fast enough to look all the way to end-game for all possible moves, the computer should always win or stale-mate. Assuming both the computer and the human play perfectly, they should always stale-mate. Once the end-game look is achieved the computer will take the most likely solution from the current state. However, there is also the issue of the programmer trying to decide that value. This is the toughest part actually. How do you grade a tree of possible moves in which several go to mate to the computer, and several go to mate to the opponent? This is often handled by action-reaction memorized moves from other games played in the past.... In which case the code starts reading like the movie Princess Bride:
Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah? Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain. Inigo Montoya: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro? Man in Black: Naturally... but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don't you? Inigo Montoya: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have._________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
WhiteSky wrote:
I believe we can think but computer can guess
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing. It involves analyzing a set of options. The reason I say it doesn't involve thinking is because chess is ultimately a purely analytical process. Thinking is broader than that, in my opinion, though I think I'm getting myself in deep water with some of the other thinkers around here. :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithYes I agree with you analyze is better than guess because When we start to play with d2-d4 or e2-e4 we have an idea but it plays without any idea.
WhiteSky
-
WhiteSky wrote:
who is winner finally?
Finally... as in all the centuries in the future? the computer. Tomorrow? depends on the human.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
I never imagine computers will be better of human but a thing is interesting for me when they will be have AI what happens for us!?
WhiteSky
-
WhiteSky wrote:
I believe we can think but computer can guess
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing. It involves analyzing a set of options. The reason I say it doesn't involve thinking is because chess is ultimately a purely analytical process. Thinking is broader than that, in my opinion, though I think I'm getting myself in deep water with some of the other thinkers around here. :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithI don't think I understand why you differentiate between thinking and analyzing. Do you not think when you analyze things? :~ I think I know what you want to say, but I am not sure if I agree with your choice of words (not that I have any better suggestions).
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
What do you think who is winner finally? computer or human I believe we can think but computer can guess(probability)
WhiteSky
We, the humans!, may never be able to out process the machine - but the thing we can do is break the rules, or cheat if you like. I'd love to see Deep Blue try and beat me at chess when I'm in full cheating mode :D
-
I don't think I understand why you differentiate between thinking and analyzing. Do you not think when you analyze things? :~ I think I know what you want to say, but I am not sure if I agree with your choice of words (not that I have any better suggestions).
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I don't think I understand why you differentiate between thinking and analyzing. Do you not think when you analyze things?
Well, in the context of Chess Playing thinking and analazing is probably the same thing. Computer programs analyze the tree of possible moves and select one with the best chance of winning. When a person plays chess he is thinking but basic process is the same, just different word, the person analyzes possible moves and selects the best one. However in general I wouldn't say thinking and analyzing is the same thing. Thinking, in my opinion is more synonymous with "inventing". When you analyze something, you stay withing well defined bounds, say you are analyzing some problem which has a set of troubleshooting steps and solutions (much like level 1 tech support people reading the script), should you encounter something unfamiliar you would be stuck. Which is what a chess program is, it operates on a well defined problem with well defined solution it analyzes the problem and suggests solution. Sure it is a very advanced program, but under the skin it's nothing more than a fancy troubleshooting script. Thinking, or inventing is when you analyze a problem and come up with something completely out of the scope of the original program, much like all of the mankind progress has been made - people observed the same patterns and events as thousands of people before them, yet at some moment something clicked and some person makes a leap outside common boundaries. Think of the Wright brothers, they had a well defined problem with no solution, yet they did it. Certain computer programs try to emulate "Wright brothers" thinking, by trying different approaches randomly and measuring success rate, if success rate increases it means the program chose something out of the ordinary which actually helps solve the problem. However, I still wouldn't put too much faith in such programs. And I still would say that thinking and analyzing are two different things, even if it's just a question of semantics.
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I don't think I understand why you differentiate between thinking and analyzing. Do you not think when you analyze things?
Well, in the context of Chess Playing thinking and analazing is probably the same thing. Computer programs analyze the tree of possible moves and select one with the best chance of winning. When a person plays chess he is thinking but basic process is the same, just different word, the person analyzes possible moves and selects the best one. However in general I wouldn't say thinking and analyzing is the same thing. Thinking, in my opinion is more synonymous with "inventing". When you analyze something, you stay withing well defined bounds, say you are analyzing some problem which has a set of troubleshooting steps and solutions (much like level 1 tech support people reading the script), should you encounter something unfamiliar you would be stuck. Which is what a chess program is, it operates on a well defined problem with well defined solution it analyzes the problem and suggests solution. Sure it is a very advanced program, but under the skin it's nothing more than a fancy troubleshooting script. Thinking, or inventing is when you analyze a problem and come up with something completely out of the scope of the original program, much like all of the mankind progress has been made - people observed the same patterns and events as thousands of people before them, yet at some moment something clicked and some person makes a leap outside common boundaries. Think of the Wright brothers, they had a well defined problem with no solution, yet they did it. Certain computer programs try to emulate "Wright brothers" thinking, by trying different approaches randomly and measuring success rate, if success rate increases it means the program chose something out of the ordinary which actually helps solve the problem. However, I still wouldn't put too much faith in such programs. And I still would say that thinking and analyzing are two different things, even if it's just a question of semantics.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
Certain computer programs try to emulate "Wright brothers" thinking
I don't you're using the well established definition of to think. Computers do not think. Thinking is a cognitive process. What computers do is a mechanical process, meaning that it is nothing more than a bunch of cog wheels (figuratively speaking of course!) I'm sorry, but you have not convinced me that thinking and analyzing are two different things. One might be a special case of the other, but that's as far as I'll go...
-- Raaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
-
WhiteSky wrote:
I believe we can think but computer can guess
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing. It involves analyzing a set of options. The reason I say it doesn't involve thinking is because chess is ultimately a purely analytical process. Thinking is broader than that, in my opinion, though I think I'm getting myself in deep water with some of the other thinkers around here. :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithNo you're right. Eventually there will be a computer that can play a perfect, unbeatable game, and we will discover some cool axiom about the game of chess, like "white always wins" or something like that. Chess is a 'perfect' problem, and it has a perfect solution. The reason a perfect chess computer hasn't been done yet is because it would take too many resources for it be able to make its moves in some amount of time that we are willing to wait for. Algorithms to calculate all possible outcomes of a chess decision have already been written, it's just that no computer can run those programs in a reasonable amount of time. Quantum computing may solve this issue, and it will be interesting to see if the QC crowd adopts Chess as one of their standard problems. Chess-playing programs are fun to write because there exists a perfect solution, you just can't use it. It requires new ways of thinking to take that perfect solution and optimize it to make it less-perfect, but more practical.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles. -
We, the humans!, may never be able to out process the machine - but the thing we can do is break the rules, or cheat if you like. I'd love to see Deep Blue try and beat me at chess when I'm in full cheating mode :D
That's the difference between thought and analysis. Thought can provide a solution when the opponent is cheating, analysis can not, because cheating is outside the scope of the problem definition.
"Quality Software since 1983!"
http://www.smoothjazzy.com/ - see the "Programming" section for freeware tools and articles. -
Marc Clifton wrote:
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing.
Very true. Chess has a brute-force solution that always wins, and that is analyzing all possible moves until end-game, from the current state of the board. In most cases this is unreasonable. Most computers go n-moves into the future to reduce "thinking time" which also reduces reliability of the analysis. When we achieve a computer fast enough to look all the way to end-game for all possible moves, the computer should always win or stale-mate. Assuming both the computer and the human play perfectly, they should always stale-mate. Once the end-game look is achieved the computer will take the most likely solution from the current state. However, there is also the issue of the programmer trying to decide that value. This is the toughest part actually. How do you grade a tree of possible moves in which several go to mate to the computer, and several go to mate to the opponent? This is often handled by action-reaction memorized moves from other games played in the past.... In which case the code starts reading like the movie Princess Bride:
Inigo Montoya: You are using Bonetti's Defense against me, ah? Man in Black: I thought it fitting considering the rocky terrain. Inigo Montoya: Naturally, you must suspect me to attack with Capa Ferro? Man in Black: Naturally... but I find that Thibault cancels out Capa Ferro. Don't you? Inigo Montoya: Unless the enemy has studied his Agrippa... which I have._________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
El Corazon wrote:
the movie Princess Bride
Classic.;)
God Bless, Jason
DavidCrow wrote:
It would not affect me or my family one iota. My wife and I are in charge of when the tv is on, and what it displays. I do not need any external input for that.
-
I never imagine computers will be better of human but a thing is interesting for me when they will be have AI what happens for us!?
WhiteSky
WhiteSky wrote:
when they will be have AI what happens for us!?
We already have AI. VB programmers are convinced they have intelligence. ;)
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Joergen Sigvardsson wrote:
I don't think I understand why you differentiate between thinking and analyzing. Do you not think when you analyze things?
Well, in the context of Chess Playing thinking and analazing is probably the same thing. Computer programs analyze the tree of possible moves and select one with the best chance of winning. When a person plays chess he is thinking but basic process is the same, just different word, the person analyzes possible moves and selects the best one. However in general I wouldn't say thinking and analyzing is the same thing. Thinking, in my opinion is more synonymous with "inventing". When you analyze something, you stay withing well defined bounds, say you are analyzing some problem which has a set of troubleshooting steps and solutions (much like level 1 tech support people reading the script), should you encounter something unfamiliar you would be stuck. Which is what a chess program is, it operates on a well defined problem with well defined solution it analyzes the problem and suggests solution. Sure it is a very advanced program, but under the skin it's nothing more than a fancy troubleshooting script. Thinking, or inventing is when you analyze a problem and come up with something completely out of the scope of the original program, much like all of the mankind progress has been made - people observed the same patterns and events as thousands of people before them, yet at some moment something clicked and some person makes a leap outside common boundaries. Think of the Wright brothers, they had a well defined problem with no solution, yet they did it. Certain computer programs try to emulate "Wright brothers" thinking, by trying different approaches randomly and measuring success rate, if success rate increases it means the program chose something out of the ordinary which actually helps solve the problem. However, I still wouldn't put too much faith in such programs. And I still would say that thinking and analyzing are two different things, even if it's just a question of semantics.
JazzJackRabbit wrote:
Well, in the context of Chess Playing thinking and analazing is probably the same thing.
Actually, no. Given the issue I brought up. Assuming two movement trees are generated that have the highest "score" how do you determine between which two? A person uses intuitive, or comparitive analysis based on non-game related activies (looking at the person, how he dresses, how he moves, how rapidly he reacts to opening moves). This is an intuitive analysis of that person's reasoning ability. This is also what makes a human opponent poor comparison to computer opponent. The human has no opponent reference to make intuitive moves, essentially you are trying to make him play blindfolded chess (which is a different skill entirely), or remote chess (where you never see your opponent) which is again a different skill. Human beings are naturally massively parallel, when you look at a chess opponent you are taking in more than his physical moves and applying it to your choices. A computer scores the value of a move based on the programmer's scoring methodology. When you have two equal "value" moves you do not choose one over the other because the person just ate and has indigestion and that move would be more distracting than the other, or because he is a rapid opening move and one branch has "deeper" thought processes than the other. The computer randomly chooses between equal branches. Except the human player knows they are not equal branches. That is the power of intuitive, or thought, processes vs. analytical methodology.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
What do you think who is winner finally? computer or human I believe we can think but computer can guess(probability)
WhiteSky
1st couple of rounds would probably be owned by the computer...nxt rounds would probably end in a draw.After sometime no amount of luck could let the computer win against the same human opponent. Why? Because every machine has a pattern and once that pattern has been blurted out, a series of moves is all it takes to checkmate the son of a gun...and chess people arn't that stupid:->
Aim small, miss small
-
What do you think who is winner finally? computer or human I believe we can think but computer can guess(probability)
WhiteSky
Everyone knows that the computers will eventually win, and take us over. In a last ditch effort, we're going to torch the sky so they wont get the solar energy they need. I saw it on a documentary where they eventually placed humans in canisters and used them as batteries.
-
WhiteSky wrote:
I believe we can think but computer can guess
Chess involves neither thinking nor guessing. It involves analyzing a set of options. The reason I say it doesn't involve thinking is because chess is ultimately a purely analytical process. Thinking is broader than that, in my opinion, though I think I'm getting myself in deep water with some of the other thinkers around here. :) Marc
People are just notoriously impossible. --DavidCrow
There's NO excuse for not commenting your code. -- John Simmons / outlaw programmer
People who say that they will refactor their code later to make it "good" don't understand refactoring, nor the art and craft of programming. -- Josh SmithThere is some thinking involved, similar to poker. Sure this could be the best move against a logical opponent. But if you know something about the way the other guy thinks, sometimes a sub optimal solution is going to do more for you. That being said, presumably if you continue to make the best moves you should always win, it just you might not wipe the guy out as quickly and completely as you would if you shaped your strategy to the opponent.
-
WhiteSky wrote:
who is winner finally?
Finally... as in all the centuries in the future? the computer. Tomorrow? depends on the human.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)