why study chess any more?
Tom Geller
(SteveK953) wrote:
>As another example, if a computer can compose the most beatiful music,
>better
>than any human can do, and the computer can do it 24 hours a day,
>364 days a year
What, does it rest on Christmas?
Sorry, couldn't resist. :)
--
Tom Geller, Dir. of Development | Visit NetEnglish.com at
The Academy of English | http://www.netenglish.com
San Francisco, CA 94103 | The best little English school
Tel: +1-415-546-6451 | in the San Francisco Bay area!
Joe Stella
>stev...@aol.com (SteveK953) writes:
>>I have found that as computers get stronger in chess, and as they beat me
>>more and more, my desire to take chess seriously any more is becoming
>>less and less.
>>[...]
Let's suppose that there are lots of humans out there that play stronger
chess than you do. That doesn't discourage you, but a strong computer
does? I don't get it...
Just remember one thing, the computer did not build and program itself. I
don't understand why everyone talks about "human vs. machine". It isn't
like that at all. It's "human-who-plays-chess vs. humans-who-build-and-
program-computers-to-play-chess".
You should use the computer as a tool. Don't get so egotistically involved
with who wins and who loses when you play it. Just play, try your best,
and use the computer to sharpen your tactics. When you lose, just look
at it the same way as you would look at any chess lesson given to you
by a better player. The people who programmed the computer are giving you
the lesson; the computer itself isn't. It's just a machine, you know!
Joe S.
John
Ok first of all chess is not and never will be solved by computers. Even
when the day comes that Kasparov or who ever is WC is beaten by a
computer it still will not solve it. THis does give you the possibility
to study hard enough to beat it. THe possibility is always there.
But anyways besides this technicality who really cares if computers are
better. You shouldn't be playing to be better than a machine. Play for
the love of the game. Computers may be better but humans sure play a lot
prettier. You've never heard a anyone comment that a program played a
lot like a Tal or Fischer. They play a totally different type of chess.
The human type of chess will always be more dynamic. It may not be
better than the way computers play but it will always have that human
flair. Somthing that no computer program will ever have.
And come on. I'll never be a grandmaster but I keep playing because
occasionally I'll make a move that has that flair. That's what keeps the
drive alive.
****************************************
* John Bartkiw (bar...@gaul.csd.uwo) *
****************************************
SteveK953
I have found that as computers get stronger in chess, and as they beat me
more and more, my desire to take chess seriously any more is becoming
less and less.
I feel, what is the point to study and analyse, when at the end, no matter
how hard one puts time into this craft, a small piece of metal will do it
better
than you any of us any time of the day?
Sure, I still play chess, but now I do it just for fun, a few blitz games
now and
then, but I'll never want to spend any more time actually studying or
analyzing
any more.
Becuase of computers, I have thrown the towel, and gave up this field to
computers.
For me chess is an art. my goal to play chess was to perfect this art, but
to see a machine that does it better than me, seem to shake the foundation
of the resoning behind my staying in this field, and to say to myself,
this is not
worth it any more. I'l just play chess for fun with my fellow human
players, but will
not put any more time and effort into chess, and will not take it any more
seriously any more, and will look for another intellectuall/artistic field
that
computers are still not the masters in it, yet...
chess, i feel is different than other sports. It is not like say running.
where
some will give the old argument that people still practics to be great
runners, even
though a bicyle exist (as an example). But with chess this analogy do not
work.
Chess is an art and an intelectuall activity, not a physical one.
As another example, if a computer can compose the most beatiful music,
better
than any human can do, and the computer can do it 24 hours a day,
364 days a year, producing one great symphony after the other, at the rate
of
one symphony per nanosecond, would there be a reason for any human to try
to
become a music composer any more? what's the point, when knowing that no
matter how hard they work at it, a computer can compse a better peice of
music.
The same idea applies for chess.
thank you for reading some of my random thoughts on this subject. I'll be
interested to hear some of your thoughts on this.
Randal J. Andrews
writes:
>Becuase of computers, I have thrown the towel, and gave up this
>field [chess] to computers.
>
If you like chess, but dislike the proficiency of computers at it, then
you should try shogi. Shogi is Japanese chess, so the object of the
game is the same: checkmate. What's special about shogi is that
captured pieces are re-used by the capturing side during the game, so
the position never simplifies. This means, that for any given shogi
position there might be over 200 possible moves compared with 30 or so
for chess. As you can see, computers have a tough time with shogi.
This is not only because of the sheer number of possibilities, but also
because there is no convenient yardstick to measure the value of
pieces. You cannot say Q=9 R=5 B=3 N=3 P=1, like chess. Because
captured pieces are re-used very often a strong piece will be
sacrificed for a weaker piece because the player judges that the "weak"
piece he captures will be more useful to him than the "strong" piece
his opponent will get. Sheer number of possibilities combined with
fluctuating piece values make computers terrible at shogi. However, as
in chess the human player can quickly whittle down the number of
candidate moves and play a decent game, (subject to one's skill, of
course). Furthermore, shogi is more fun than chess to play. Shogi is
weighted in favor of the attacker so draws are extremely rare. Every
game between evenly matched players ends in a direct attack on the
king.
Eric Martin
chess than humans? Cars go faster than humans, too, but we still have
the Olympics. You could easily construct a machine to wing 120 mph
fastballs at the batter, but baseball will never die.
I am certain that computers will eventually be able to easily beat
anyone. Actually, I'm really surprised it hasn't already happened. I
just don't see why people care...
E Martin
Don Getkey
Steven, Steven, Steven,
You do sound like a man who has been beaten senseless, over, and over,
again. I want you to know that even "serious chess" must retain a morsel
of that essential ingredient called "fun" for long lasting fulfillment.
However if you have lost this invigorating concept during your chess
travels, I'm not convinced that you can blame the advent of the computer
for it. No, it must be more a kind of repetitive burnout I think. You
should take a new approach in attitude towards playing the silicon
monsters. Understand, they are not invinceable. They are not unstopable.
They are not always going to win. They are not aways right. They are not
perfect. Most of all, they are not artists! Chess offers them/us a fun
and unique way to pretend that computers have intelligence. But this is an
entertaining self made illusion on our part at best. The truth is, they
are "brainless", and don't have a single "creative" artistic thought
whatsoever!
Try not to go in already defeated before the first pawn is pushed! Hold
your head up, learn a little more, and remember, you are the one who has a
real brain, you are the one who actually thinks, you are the one who can
create! Not that electrified bucket of bolts and sand!
Just to show you how truly ignorant computers can be about chess look at
this game I played against MChess Pro 5.0. Now my rating is a mere 1279
USCF (but I probably play closer to 1500 on a good day), and I played this
game while at the same time chating with my wife and watching TV no less!
[Event "40/60"]
[Site "home"]
[Date "1995.12.24"]
[Round "-"]
[White "Don Gaetke"]
[Black "M-Chess 5"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[BlackClock "1469"]
[TimeControl "40/3600:40/3600:40/3600"]
Timothy Hanke
Lasker is famous for playing the man, not the board. In other words, he
understood that *in a game between humans,* there is no objectively best
move. The best move is the one your opponent is least able to handle,
that's all.
A game between two computers, or between a computer and a human, is
qualitatively different than a game between two humans. I confess I
would be intrigued to see two supercomputers playing "perfect" chess
against one another, but more from intellectual curiosity than from
sporting interest. Similarly, I would regard a contest between a
"perfect" (i.e., very strong) supercomputer and a strong human player as
an opportunity for us humans to learn something about technique. All
right, I confess I might also hope for the human to show the computer a
thing or two. ;-)
But for a real *fight,* give me a game between two humans every
time--where the factors involved are not just technical knowledge, but
imagination, passion, self-knowledge, insight into the opponent, and
nerve.
Timothy Hanke
Halibut
: This issue about computers is moot. So what if they can play better
: chess than humans? Cars go faster than humans, too, but we still have
: the Olympics. You could easily construct a machine to wing 120 mph
: fastballs at the batter, but baseball will never die.
People care because it's not like cars going faster, or stronger,
or anything like that.
No matter how weak or strong a player of chess, only one move is
made at a time. The move made is a product of human ingenuity and much
thought. It is a defeat for mankind if a computer can choose a better one
move to make, or if a computer can compose a better poem, etc.
Things like that are different than brute force and strength.
Anders Thulin
SteveK953 <stev...@aol.com> wrote:
>[...]
>seriously any more, and will look for another intellectuall/artistic field
>that
>computers are still not the masters in it, yet...
Dropping out of chess because computers play better is about a
bright as dropping of out math because computers calculate faster.
It's like learning the Euclidean proof of the infinity of prime
numbers (which still gives me shivers) because there's a chip
somewhere that will compute one million prime numbers in five seconds.
It's like ignoring a problem by Mansfield or Ellerman (or indeed Sam
Loyd) because there are computers that can solve the problem in one
second flat.
>one symphony per nanosecond, would there be a reason for any human to try
>to
>become a music composer any more? what's the point,
A composer doesn't try to 'advance' some abstract art of music. He
(or indeed she) has a musical structure to show you, or an tonal
experiment to make. Almost do-or-die.
A musician doesn't try to advance the general art of playing. She
(or he) plays to play.
Music is a good analogy to chess. Press it some. Who's listening?
>The same idea applies for chess.
Do you like passive verb forms? Have you tried making that sentence
active? How would it sound? "I apply the same idea to chess"? You
do?
--
Anders Thulin Anders...@lejonet.se 013 - 23 55 32
Telia Research AB, Teknikringen 2B, S-583 30 Linkoping, Sweden
Eric Martin
you are putting too much emphasis on human vs. computer here. Just
because it's a "mental" process, does not make it any more important
than a physical one. Look, computers can add columns of numbers much
faster than any person...have we failed here?
Computers are machines. It all depends on your priorities...the move, or
the person making the move.
E Martin
ray montalvo jr.
basis, this point seems moot. You don't play a computer in order to beat
the computer, you should play the computer because no one else is
available. The computer is a tool. This tool helps you improve. The
tool is not a person nor an enemy. Do you stop talking to people because
you have a computer you can write on? Play chess. Study Chess. Don't be
afraid of the computer.
Benjamin J. Tilly
tig...@ix.netcom.com(Randal J. Andrews ) writes:
> In <4ddg2s$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com> stev...@aol.com (SteveK953)
> writes:
>
> >Becuase of computers, I have thrown the towel, and gave up this
> >field [chess] to computers.
> >
>
> If you like chess, but dislike the proficiency of computers at it, then
> you should try shogi. Shogi is Japanese chess, so the object of the
> game is the same: checkmate. What's special about shogi is that
> captured pieces are re-used by the capturing side during the game, so
> the position never simplifies. This means, that for any given shogi
> position there might be over 200 possible moves compared with 30 or so
> for chess. As you can see, computers have a tough time with shogi.
I think that if you *really* want to avoid computers then go into Go.
Go has simpler rules, and the best computers are apparently so bad that
even absolute beginners win fairly easily against them. There the
problems are the sheer number of moves and the fact that there is
no simple evaluation term (material) which has any importance at all.
> This is not only because of the sheer number of possibilities, but also
> because there is no convenient yardstick to measure the value of
> pieces. You cannot say Q=9 R=5 B=3 N=3 P=1, like chess. Because
Actually in chess you cannot say this, the value of a piece depends
upon the position.
> captured pieces are re-used very often a strong piece will be
> sacrificed for a weaker piece because the player judges that the "weak"
> piece he captures will be more useful to him than the "strong" piece
> his opponent will get. Sheer number of possibilities combined with
> fluctuating piece values make computers terrible at shogi. However, as
> in chess the human player can quickly whittle down the number of
> candidate moves and play a decent game, (subject to one's skill, of
> course). Furthermore, shogi is more fun than chess to play. Shogi is
> weighted in favor of the attacker so draws are extremely rare. Every
> game between evenly matched players ends in a direct attack on the
> king.
Ben Tilly
Ron Moskovitz
write a more beautiful poem than a computer" because, quite frankly,
poetry is completely subjective. I don't think there are objective
standards (when dealing with top quality poetry--which is the relevant
comparison) for poetry, or for music, or any other "artistic" thing.
And, quite frankly, that makes me call into question the artisticness of
chess, because there is an objective standard: did you win. I wonder
how many losses are on people's lists of "most beautiful games ever"?
-Ron
Wonteach
could do it better and faster. They don't compose for the purpose of
producing something that's "better" (whatever that means) than what
someone else composes. Like anyone with a creative, artistic attitude,
they do it for the sheer pleasure of the act itself. Computers already
play better than I do, but I was never playing for the purpose of being
better than someone else, human or coimputer, in the first place. I
played because I get pleasure out of playing! And why on earth (or in
heaven) should I get less pleasure out of it because some computer, or
some human, somewhere, is better than I am at it?
Bruce Moreland
than any human.
We have not built this computer yet. We may not build this computer. But
this computer can be built, assuming we don't collapse society or something.
I don't think this detracts at all from chess.
I think the baseball analogy is almost perfect. The flaw is that it's a lot
harder to make a program that can beat kasparov than it is to make something
that can throw a fastball 120 mph.
There is something already that can create better "painting" than a human
can. It is called a camera. I am not an art expert, but I read somewhere
that the existence of this device caused a shift in what painters tried to do
with their art. Has this hurt painting?
Computers can already out-perform humans in some areas of chess. Troitsky
spent a considerable amount of time figuring out the ending KNN vs KP. Now,
construction of a database that can solve this ending for any given position
is a pretty trivial undertaking by comparison.
Humans can cope with a lot, and I'm sure we'll able to cope with the notion
that a computer can play chess better than we can. I suspect that play
against this hypothetical supra-human chess player will cause the very best
humans to improve their play, and will allow them to formulate new chess
theory that benefits the rest of us as well.
bruce
In article <4dhlsg$3...@cnct.com>, hal...@cnct.com says...
--
The opinions expressed in this message are my own personal views
and do not reflect the official views of Microsoft Corporation.
John Verosky M
It gets pleasure out of such a work out, just as a mountain climber
gets pleasure out of straining the body to its limits. We play chess
to satisfy this mental need, not to win. It is immaterial whether
a machine can easily beat us. We play for the thoughts chess gives us.
People will always play chess!!
Joe Stella
>hal...@cnct.com (Halibut) writes:
>>It is a defeat for mankind if a computer can choose a better one
>>move to make, or if a computer can compose a better poem, etc.
In what way is it a defeat for mankind? Did the computer build itself?
Did it program itself?
Humans invented the idea of a computer, then carried that idea forward
and made it a reality. When a computer does something well, this is
a victory for the *people* who programmed it, not a victory for the
computer. The computer is mindless, and just executes the instructions
given to it.
Joe S.
spezko::billmers
world. In the AI (artificial intelligence) community there is a long-standing
debate about just what constitutes intelligence, and the various
ethical issues as computers do more and more of what humans do.
Mostly I'm still on the side that argues that I enjoy running even though
cars go much faster than me and I'll never beat a machine in a race.
But Halibut wrote that chess is different, because it's not just a matter
of brute force. He may have a point. People used to worry about knowing
how to do arithmethic, use log tables, and the like. Now we just make
sure we have a spare battery for the calculator.
Surely, in art we have a difference. Bruce Moreland noted that we already
have a machine that makes the perfect picture -- a camera. People and
machines can both invent new ways to portray. It's called innovation in
art and doesn't much matter whether people or machines do it. And neither
will ever be clearly "better", any more than Picasso is clearly better or
worse than Miro or Degas or Rembrandt. In that sense, humans will innovate
at chess. Machines, using different processes, will also innovate.
But there is a bottom-line difference between chess and art, just as there
is one between chess and racing. Racing is brute strength (mostly) while
chess involves the core of human creativity and intelligence, so we can
pooh-pooh the rise of machines that go fast. But the difference between
chess and art is that in chess, SOMEONE WINS or LOSES. This clear-cut
metric for performance opens the spectre that machines will become
demonstrably better than us; not necessarily at the process of creating
but at the end product of the struggle. After all, I don't play chess to
create; I play to win!
So I propose a different answer to why we should play chess. I don't play
because I may or may not be better than a machine. After all, I'll never
be better than Judit Polgar either. I play because I enjoy it.
And it only really gets interesting when the machine that beats me enjoys
it too :-)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer A. Billmers Digital Equipment Corporation
bill...@ljo.dec.com Connectivity Software Business Unit
(508)486-2679
Adam Whiteson
> ........................................ After all, I'll never
> be better than Judit Polgar either. I play because I enjoy it.
>
> And it only really gets interesting when the machine that beats me enjoys
> it too :-)
>
I think this is right. All this talk about chess being "the touchstone
of the human intellect " and so on is an irrelevant conceit from which
computers have finally freed us. Chess is interesting because,
as Lasker said, it is a "struggle". People who enjoy making complicated
and subtle patterns can satisfy this need with art or music or mathematics.
Chess players love to win, to defeat another person, but this too is
not the answer. Strong chess players avoid opponents that they can easily
defeat, instead they insist on playing against opponents that may well
beat them. People come to chess because it gives them the opportunity
to struggle with another human being.
A hard fought game of chess is one of the few examples of an honest
conversation. You don't worry about sparing the other fellow's
feelings and you know he is listening as carefully as he can to what you
'say' on the board. If you make a beautiful move he will appreciate it
in all its detail and subtlety. Few artists can be confident of being
appreciated by their audience but the chess player knows his opponent
"hangs on his every word". And when the game is over, when the battle
is lost and won, there is a residual feeling of intimacy between the
opponents that comes from having seen something of the soul of another
person.
The struggle combines two human fascinations, overcoming obstacles
in adversity and close contact with another person. To clarify,
when I say intimacy I do not mean affection. These are two distinct
things that may or may be found together.
Computers are a very useful tool for training and analysis and as they
grow more powerful so will their value increase. But to play against
a computer is a lonely and unsatsifying business. There is no
conversation. If you make a brilliant move the computer will not
appreciate it and even when the computer does something wonderful
on the board it does not enjoy it.
When shall we three meet again
In thunder lightening or in rain?
When the hurlyburly's done,
When the battle's lost and won.
Macbeth Act 1 Scene 1
Adam Whiteson
Don Getkey
<ha...@harvarda.harvard.edu> writes:
>Emanuel Lasker once said: "Chess is, above all else, a fight."
>
>Lasker is famous for playing the man, not the board. In other words, he
>understood that *in a game between humans,* there is no objectively best
>move. The best move is the one your opponent is least able to handle,
>that's all.
>
>
Here is a debate all it's own. Are the "Laskerians" right or are the , ,
, uh, "Fischerians" right? Which side IS holding up the torch if truth?
Those who believe what GM Lasker may have, as quoted above, or those who
believe as GM Fischer; that there IS a certain absolute "truth" to search
out in any position, and that your opponent is quite unrelated to it.
That it is always best to search the board for the truth of the position,
rather than the opponent. Many would say it is foolish chess to purposely
play less than the best moves depending on how your opponent reacts, or
how well you know him/her.
But maybe the Laskerians are right after all? Maybe the "best move" is
the move that deteriorates your specific opponents ability to respond.
Different opponent different move. A kind of situational ethics in chess.
Exploiting percieved weaknesses in the individuals line of thinking
rather than the actual line of play. "Relativism" or "Absolutism"?
Ironic considering where these two sides come from in chess. One would
think that Lasker would have been the absolutist, because he was perhaps
of a slightly higher moral standard than, Fischer, who on the other hand
is well known for his less than moral acumen, more of a relativist.
yours in chess
Don
Ramsey MN USA
Nasser Abbasi
>
>The human mind has a need to think complicated knotted up thoughts.
>It gets pleasure out of such a work out, just as a mountain climber
>gets pleasure out of straining the body to its limits. We play chess
>to satisfy this mental need, not to win. It is immaterial whether
>a machine can easily beat us.
I think it becomes not immaterial whether a machine can easily
beat us only when one wants to decide to devote themself to the
game or not.
Chess is very hard, requires lots and lots of effort and time to become
good at.
What is the point of devoting yourself to something when a machine
will always do it better?
Sure, one can enjoy playing the game, but it not not much fun to endovour
and work very hard to master something knowing you'll never be able to
reach the top.
It is like getting ready to climb a mountain, that you know befor you
start the climb that you'll never be able to reach the top no matter how
hard you try. Many people will decide not to bother with climbing that
mountain to start with, they might decide it is better to save their
energy for a mountain they have a hope of reaching its top.
It is very discourging.
Nasser
Robert Weir
>I have found that as computers get stronger in chess, and as they beat me
>more and more, my desire to take chess seriously any more is becoming
>less and less.
>I feel, what is the point to study and analyse, when at the end, no matter
>how hard one puts time into this craft, a small piece of metal will do it
>better
>than you any of us any time of the day?
Computer chess is a human, intellectual activity, at least for the
programmer. Try writing a chess program! Perhaps the next level is
playing chess by proxy, seeing who can write the best chess program?
And when that gets boring, we start writing programs which writes
chess programs, and so on...
Ron Moskovitz
I'll bet everyone over twelve on this newsgroup knows that they are never
going to be the world champion of chess. If that is your motivation, I
suggest you find another endeavor.
The top is so far away from most of us that aiming for it is pointless.
Whether or not it's a computer or a person--you think you'll catch
Kasparov?
I can't tell you why to study chess, I can only tell you why I do: Because I
enjoy it. I enjoy understanding the game, and the more I study, the more
I understand. But I have no delusions of grandeur. I'll never win a world
championship--heck, I'll probably never even become an expert-level
player, (not the least because I have a sense of how much studying would
be involved, and am not particularly willing to make that commitment.)
But I like playing, and I like winning more than losing.
Saying, "Oh, well, a computer is the best, and I'll never beat the computer,
so I might as well stop trying" only makes sense if you previously had a
chance to be the best. Realistically, that's just not going to happen
to us mortals, so, what was driving you before? Did you really beleive
you could be the best?
(My apologies if you are, in fact, a grandmaster in disguise.)
It's fun to dream, but you are treading dangerous water if your dream is
your motivation in chess. It's fun, but dangerous. (An analogy--almost half
of Jr. High School basketball players believe that they'll make the NBA.
There's nothing wrong with that unless they start neglecting other parts of
their lives because they "know" they'll make it.) I could understand your
complaint if it were coming from Krammnik or Kamsky, but for a mortal, even
a highly rated one, it just doesn't seem to make sense.
Ray Helie
have to look into it to find out how to play. :) Thanks
for posting that.
Bruce Moreland
better? Obviously, there is a point, otherwise there'd only be one person
playing chess!
bruce
In article <4dm76k$p...@qualcomm.com>, nab...@qualcomm.com says...
>
>Chess is very hard, requires lots and lots of effort and time to become
>good at.
>
>What is the point of devoting yourself to something when a machine
>will always do it better?
>
>Sure, one can enjoy playing the game, but it not not much fun to endovour
>and work very hard to master something knowing you'll never be able to
>reach the top.
--
Joe Stella
no one had anything to say about my previous posts in this thread
where I posed questions like "Did the computer build itself" and
"Did it program itself"?
Everyone keeps talking about the victory of "machines over humans"
as if the machines have a life of their own. Why doesn't anyone
want to consider that the machines were built and programmed by
humans? If a computer beats the best players in the world, it
simply means that humans can build a machine that plays chess better
than other humans play chess. Either way it is a victory for humans,
not machines.
Joe S.
Larry Reifurth
>Excuse me everybody if I am being obtuse, but I am wondering why
>no one had anything to say about my previous posts in this thread
>where I posed questions like "Did the computer build itself" and
>"Did it program itself"?
>
of posters responding to the original complaint have taken the opposite
position: that there is little to be concerned about computers becoming
better than humans at chess. I've only noted two others who agreed with
the stated concern. I suppose you might reasonably ask why they haven't
responded to your point. Everyone else appears to be in agreement, to
some degree or another.
Don Fong
>What's the point of devoting yourself to something that another HUMAN can do
>better? Obviously, there is a point, otherwise there'd only be one person
>playing chess!
the point is that human skills are usually hard won and not
easily transferred or replicated. that's what makes them valuable.
OTOH, when it comes to computers, one unit can transfer its "skill"
to another completely and almost instantaneously. this cheapens
any skill that computers happen to acquire.
for a long time, computers have been taking over human jobs.
i guess it's inevitable that they'll also take over human games.
but we don't have to like it.
>In article <4dm76k$p...@qualcomm.com>, nab...@qualcomm.com says...
>>Chess is very hard, requires lots and lots of effort and time to become
>>good at.
>>
>>What is the point of devoting yourself to something when a machine
>>will always do it better?
>>
>>Sure, one can enjoy playing the game, but it not not much fun to endovour
>>and work very hard to master something knowing you'll never be able to
>>reach the top.
--
--- don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
--
Joe Stella
>df...@cse.ucsc.edu (Don Fong) writes:
>> i for one didn't say anything because i did not think it was worth
>>answering. it is so transparently self serving.
Eh? Self-serving? I may be a chess programmer, but I am just a hobbyist
and the strength of my program does not (and never will) come anywhere
near the level needed to challenge the best human players.
I am certain that I would have the same opinion even if I was not programming
chess at all.
>> it will be a victory not "for humans" in general, but for a
>>certain class of humans and their way of attacking the problem of chess.
And if the best humans continue to defeat computers, that will also be a
victory for a certain class of humans and *their* way of attacking the
problem of chess.
>>unlike the human champions of the past, these new victors will have
>>triumphed not thru personal understanding of the game, but thru creation
>>of a separate entity that plays for them. it is no longer a human contest.
OK, so the computer scientists are different from the human chess champions
of the past. No argument there. They are computer scieentists, after all,
not chess champions.
>>[...]
>>the losers will be those in the chess playing public who love the
>>traditional game of chess as a human contest. all IMHO.
I still don't agree. Even if the computers defeat the best humans, humans
can still play each other and the game will be just as much of a human
contest as it was before.
I just think that on this subject, most people let their emotions rule their
thinking and they don't bother to stop and think logically. They like the
romanticism of "Good-And-Innocent-Man vs. Big-Bad-Evil-Machine" and they
just don't think any further beyond that. I think that advances in computer
science will help everybody, and it's short-sighted to believe otherwise.
All IMHO.
Joe S.
Don Fong
Joe Stella <jo...@ultranet.com> wrote:
>Excuse me everybody if I am being obtuse, but I am wondering why
>no one had anything to say about my previous posts in this thread
>where I posed questions like "Did the computer build itself" and
>"Did it program itself"?
answering. it is so transparently self serving.
>Everyone keeps talking about the victory of "machines over humans"
>as if the machines have a life of their own. Why doesn't anyone
>want to consider that the machines were built and programmed by
>humans? If a computer beats the best players in the world, it
>simply means that humans can build a machine that plays chess better
>than other humans play chess. Either way it is a victory for humans,
>not machines.
it will be a victory not "for humans" in general, but for a
certain class of humans and their way of attacking the problem of chess.
unlike the human champions of the past, these new victors will have
triumphed not thru personal understanding of the game, but thru creation
of a separate entity that plays for them. it is no longer a human contest.
and as i mentioned in a previous post, human skills once acquired
by the computers become cheapened, both figuratively and financially.
that's progress, but it is not something i will applaud. like most forms
of progress there will be winners and losers. in this case the winners
will be computer scientists who get a moment of glory, and their sponsors.
the losers will be those in the chess playing public who love the
traditional game of chess as a human contest. all IMHO.
--
Ron Moskovitz
>>traditional game of chess as a human contest
This I just don't understand. How do we lose by the addition of a new
class of chessplayers?
Or do you really think that, as good chess computers get smaller and cheaper
and better, that people with stop gathering in coffeehouses, or at weekend
tournaments? Why on earth would this happen?
Computers already exist that can beat most of us, yet we aren't driven away
from the game! Why should this happen sometime in the future? Every
person who learns chess goes through a period of time when they get
beaten, handily, by shareware chess programs and yet(!) more people play
chess today than ever before.
And today there are chess programs that are competitive with the very best
players in the world, and has this been bad for chess? No! Instead it has
helped draw large corporate sponsors (Intel) into the chess world
(even if only for a short time).
So where is chess being dehumanized?
-Ron
Tim Mirabile
>While some will care when computers
>are finally able to beat every person on the planet consistently, most
>people will not even notice.
Lots of non-chessplayers think this is already the case!
Hugh Denoncourt
SHOGI-L subscriber) did not post any information as to HOW to look into
it - at least thats what I remember of the post. I could be wrong.
Personally, I think a shogi-FAQ type thing should be regularly posted to
this thread because its such a great chess game and I feel many on the net
would gain a great deal of pleasure learning this game.
However, since there isn't one, I will simply post a web site and the
mailing list information that should connect anyone interested to the
happy world of Shogi players.
Roger Hare's Shogi page - http://www.ed.ac.uk/~rjhare/shogi/intro.html
I have found his home page very useful for many things.
The shogi mailing list is a great list on which Shogi enthusiasts talk
about the fine subject of ... Shogi
to subscribe send mail to list...@technion.technion.ac.il with the body:
SUBSCRIBE SHOGI-L 'Your Name'
Also, there is a Shogi server which is currently in testing (so its not
as hopping with users as we would like... not yet anyway!) and its
address is : igs.nuri.net 4444
Its a beautiful game... enjoy,
Hugh
Brian Karen
I think there are many reasons to study chess. The most obvious is
that it is fun. Furthermore, it is constructive fun. In my opinion,
the more a person uses his mind the stronger it gets. Memory, spatial
ability, creativity, logic, and concentration are just some of the
mental activities that chess involves. I'm not sure that this has been
scientifically proven but on an intuitive level it makes sense that
playing chess will strengthen your mind.
I should add that the amount of mental exercise you get from chess
is not necessarily dependent upon how strong you are at chess. For
example, GM Boris Spassky is a chess player who has been described by
GM Karpov, among others, as being incredibly lazy. It is entirely
possible that a class E player, who tries his utmost when studying
chess, will sharpen his mental abilities to a greater extent then GM
Boris Spassky.
I should also note that I am not stating that strength in chess is
necessarily equivalent to intelligence as a whole. There are many very
intelligent people who have scant potential to become strong at chess.
Perhaps they do not have a great deal of fighting spirit, or maybe they
have a limited degree of spatial ability which puts a cap on their
possible chess achievements. Similarly, there are many strong chess
players who are not intelligent as a whole. Perhaps, they have not
exposed themselves to other forms of mental exercise and are therefore
limited in these areas. Of course, GM Bobby Fischer immediately pops to
mind who if nothing else lacks some social intelligence.
-Naisortep/Brian Karen
Nasser Abbasi
>
>In article <4ddg2s$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
>SteveK953 <stev...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>[...]
>
>>seriously any more, and will look for another intellectuall/artistic field
>>that
>>computers are still not the masters in it, yet...
>
> Dropping out of chess because computers play better is about a
>bright as dropping of out math because computers calculate faster.
>
I think the point was that chess has been "solved" by computers.
Math has not been solved by computers. (yet)
it is not the matter of calculations or the speed of it (which what
you seem to be focused on), but the idea that the whole field
(i.e. chess) is now solved, and hence for some people it might not be as
interesting as befor to try too hard to solve it themselves again..
When computers do solve math, i.e. be able to proof any mathematical
theory, (example be able to generate a proof of fermat theorm from
the axiom of mathematics) then I bet many mathematicicans might also
get somewhat bored with it...
> It's like learning the Euclidean proof of the infinity of prime
>numbers (which still gives me shivers) because there's a chip
>somewhere that will compute one million prime numbers in five seconds.
>
(I assume you mean : it is like NOT learning ..etc..)
well, again, it is not the processing speed that is in question. It is
the idea of a field being "solved" by a computer, making this field
no longer as interesting or challenging to some.. it can still be fun,
but would it still be worth putting in it the same effort as befor ?
this is the question here I think...
> It's like ignoring a problem by Mansfield or Ellerman (or indeed Sam
>Loyd) because there are computers that can solve the problem in one
>second flat.
>
Not at all. one can still enjoy solving Sam Loyd puzzles, may be
as an excersise some sunday afternoon, but if there is a
computer who can solve all of the puzzles, why would one take the issue
of solving it so seriously and spend all their time and effort and
life trying to solve one?
Nasser
Benjamin J. Tilly
nab...@qualcomm.com (Nasser Abbasi) writes:
> In article <4dgfa3$q...@nala.devnet.lejonet.se>, a...@nala.devnet.lejonet.se (Anders Thulin) says:
> >
> >In article <4ddg2s$o...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
> >SteveK953 <stev...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >>[...]
> >
> >>seriously any more, and will look for another intellectuall/artistic field
> >>that
> >>computers are still not the masters in it, yet...
> >
> > Dropping out of chess because computers play better is about a
> >bright as dropping of out math because computers calculate faster.
> >
>
> I think the point was that chess has been "solved" by computers.
No it hasn't. Even the best computers can still be beaten by people
consistently at slow enough times.
> Math has not been solved by computers. (yet)
> it is not the matter of calculations or the speed of it (which what
> you seem to be focused on), but the idea that the whole field
> (i.e. chess) is now solved, and hence for some people it might not be as
> interesting as befor to try too hard to solve it themselves again..
>
Where did you pick up this hogwash? Computers never have, and will not
in the concievable future, "solve" chess. In fact I can assert with
some confidence that no computer constructible on this planet using
current methods would possibly be capable of doing this. (Quantum
computers offer the possibility that it could be done, but that
possibility is many decades off.)
> When computers do solve math, i.e. be able to proof any mathematical
> theory, (example be able to generate a proof of fermat theorm from
> the axiom of mathematics) then I bet many mathematicicans might also
> get somewhat bored with it...
>
Your misinformation grows by leaps and bounds. Not only can I assert
that computers will not do this, but in fact it is possible to prove
that they *cannot* do this. While it IS possible in theory for
computers to be better than people, even substantially better, it is
impossible for them to be perfect at it.
For more on that read up on Goedel's theorem and the halting problem.
> > It's like learning the Euclidean proof of the infinity of prime
> >numbers (which still gives me shivers) because there's a chip
> >somewhere that will compute one million prime numbers in five seconds.
> >
>
> (I assume you mean : it is like NOT learning ..etc..)
>
> well, again, it is not the processing speed that is in question. It is
> the idea of a field being "solved" by a computer, making this field
> no longer as interesting or challenging to some.. it can still be fun,
> but would it still be worth putting in it the same effort as befor ?
> this is the question here I think...
>
In the case of chess I never had an illusion that I would be the best
person in the world, or even that I would become very good. How would
knowing that computers can do better than me change that?
> > It's like ignoring a problem by Mansfield or Ellerman (or indeed Sam
> >Loyd) because there are computers that can solve the problem in one
> >second flat.
> >
>
> Not at all. one can still enjoy solving Sam Loyd puzzles, may be
> as an excersise some sunday afternoon, but if there is a
> computer who can solve all of the puzzles, why would one take the issue
> of solving it so seriously and spend all their time and effort and
> life trying to solve one?
In the case of chess it is because it is FUN to play chess.
Similarly I read books on various topics despite the fact that I never
intend to become very good at them and I know that if I ever *really*
needed to know something in the topic then I would be better off
getting an expert to solve the problem. But I enjoy learning.
Ben Tilly
Ben Tilly
ja...@utdallas.edu
crossword puzzle. It's "opening books" would be a dictionary, a Who's
Who, and a few reference books. After a few generations (that is,
software generations), such programs would be able to solve the puzzles
faster than any human.
Tell me again why I should care, or derive any less pleasure from the New
York Times crossword puzzle because of this?
Have to go now, I haven't finished the crossword yet.
John Sargeant
Umm, no the world knowledge component of this is way beyond what any existing
or near-future NLP system can handle. For those who want to stay ahead of the
dreaded machines for as long as possible, I think serious crosswords are
a much better bet than Go, even.
Personally, I've taken up chess again with a great deal of enthusiasm because
it's pure and clean and doesn't get screwed up by things outside my control,
like most of life does.
John
Keith A McGuigan
Nasser Abbasi <nab...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>I think the point was that chess has been "solved" by computers.
Whooha! Slow down there... chess has _not_ been solved by computers.
If it was, why wouldn't a computer be the world chess champion?
The fact is, computers just use the heuristics that the programmers put into
the programs, and these heuristics are not guaranteed to always win (if they
were, it would not be a heuristic, it would be an algorithm). There is, in
fact, one algorithm that would always guarantee a win, but that is a full
tree of all the possible moves in all of the possible games. I'll tell
you right now, this kind of approach will never happen because we will
_never_ have the computing power to do it (and when I say never, I do mean
never, no matter what kind of advances happen in the next few decades. The
number of positions in every chess game imaginable surpasses the number of
subatomic particles in the universe). So, I must disagree, chess has not
been _solved_ and my personal opinion is that it may never be.
>Math has not been solved by computers. (yet)
>it is not the matter of calculations or the speed of it (which what
>you seem to be focused on), but the idea that the whole field
>(i.e. chess) is now solved, and hence for some people it might not be as
>interesting as befor to try too hard to solve it themselves again..
If chess is solved, what is the solution?
>Not at all. one can still enjoy solving Sam Loyd puzzles, may be
>as an excersise some sunday afternoon, but if there is a
>computer who can solve all of the puzzles, why would one take the issue
>of solving it so seriously and spend all their time and effort and
>life trying to solve one?
For fun! ;)
No matter what, chess is still a game, and I will keep playing it because it's
a hobby, and amusement. Somebody has all of the solutions to every crossword
puzzle that you do in the paper, does that make it any less fun?
Just my 2 cents.
-Keith
--
'The human brain is like an enormous | Keith A. McGuigan
fish -- it is flat and slimy and it | ka...@hopper.unh.edu
has gills though which it can see.' | University of New Hampshire
-Monty Python |
Nasser Abbasi
>
>In article <4e4qpi$3...@qualcomm.com>,
>Nasser Abbasi <nab...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>>
>>I think the point was that chess has been "solved" by computers.
>
> Whooha! Slow down there... chess has _not_ been solved by computers.
>If it was,
Gee wiz, you guys seem to lose the forest by just looking at the trees.
You picked on the word "solved" I used (may be not the best word) and
don't seem the see the whole idea of what is hapining or what I was
trying to say...
The idea that chess is solved is in the sense that computers can beat any
human chess player. If Karpov or Kasparov are not that easy to beat by
the computer, well, it is just a matter of time, if not today, wait few
months....
and by the way, computers did beat the world chamopin. I was there few
feets from kasparov when he lost to chess genius on Pentium computer, and
that was about 18 months ago! .. he left the stage dazed, shaking his
head, he left the stage mad followed by his few body guards.. the same
computer follwed this by beating few other GM's untill Anand was lucky to
stop it..
> If chess is solved, what is the solution?
the solution is that it can beat you. please don't get technical on me by
telling me about the large problem space and about all the atoms in the
universe can't solve it and all that. that is not important to me. the
important part is that computers can beat humans today. they have won,
we have lost.
>No matter what, chess is still a game, and I will keep playing it
because it's
>a hobby, and amusement.
no one is arguing that chess is not fun any more becuase computer
can beat us. but that is not the point of this whole thread.
cheers,
Nasser
Sanford M. Manley
but *practical results* honed over several hundred years. The first
opening works date back to the 1700's or earlier.
I am of the opinion that without their opening books, they could not
measure up any more than any human being without an opening book of
any size would. Opening theory contains many great subtleties which
are not sufficiently penetrated to this day. The hypermodern openings
have not been proven unsound nor have any of the major openings been
proven so. The possibilities are just too much to handle...so far.
Randal J. Andrews (tig...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
> However, just how important is the computer's opening book to its
> success? The opening book after all is the product of over 100 years
> of human sweat and tears. Would the program be able to beat Kasparov
> if it didn't have access to its opening book? If not, then maybe the
> solution to keep chess alive will be shuffle chess and after that is
> exhausted we can add new pieces or change the current pieces etc.
> In shogi (Japanese chess) where the opening is not so critical the
> computer programs available are still very weak. Chessplayers can
> always switch to studying shogi, like I did.
--
Sanford M. Manley Trying to be right all the time
sma...@pbfreenet.seflin.lib.fl.us is a very subtle way of being
sma...@freenet.fsu.edu wrong. - Me
afn3...@afn.org
Randal J. Andrews
writes:
>
>no one is arguing that chess is not fun any more becuase computer
>can beat us. but that is not the point of this whole thread.
>
Yes, exactly. When you can have a world champion on a disk for $99
plus the cost of your computer, will some people still devote their
lives to STUDYING chess? Trying to outwit a computer chip does not
seem to be a useful way to spend one's life.
Joe Stella
>tig...@ix.netcom.com(Randal J. Andrews ) writes:
>> However, just how important is the computer's opening book to its
>> success? The opening book after all is the product of over 100 years
>> of human sweat and tears. Would the program be able to beat Kasparov
>> if it didn't have access to its opening book?
The program is also the result of decades of human sweat and tears. It
continually amazes me how all you people keep talking about "The Program",
as if it is a living entity. It isn't.
If a computer ever becomes the strongest chessplayer, then I am sure it
will be barred from human competitions. The title of World Champion will
still mean the same thing it means today -- the best human chess player in
the world.
I think see something a bit illogical about all this. A few people have
gone to great lengths to prove to me that computers are "different" than
human masters, because they don't "understand" the game like humans do. Well,
if that is the case, then why does anyone worry about computers beating
humans? The human world champion will still be the one person who understands
chess better than any other human. Isn't that the important thing?
Joe S.
Wintermute
>However, just how important is the computer's opening book to its
>success? The opening book after all is the product of over 100 years
>of human sweat and tears. Would the program be able to beat Kasparov
>if it didn't have access to its opening book?
Speaking as a student in the final stages of a computing and information
science degree, who has taken an introductory artificial intelligence
course and done some additional reading on his own, I can perhaps shed a
little light on this issue.
Programs typically follow algorithms designed by humans (although in
some cases they can be patterned after nature, as genetic algorithms
are). In this respect, a computer can do only what a human can do, only
much faster. Computer chess players excel at tactics because they can
generate a 'tree' of possibilities many moves deep from any particular
position, quickly and accurately, and choose the best move from there.
Humans do this as well, when they "see several moves ahead." However,
the computer does not make mistakes or miss moves. If it weren't for
memory and time limits, in fact, the computer could generate a tree for
the whole game and therefore never lose. However, this tree grows so
much that even if every molecule in the universe were computing a piece
of this tree since the big bang, it still wouldn't be complete (or
something like that); the tree grows exponentially.
In practice, even moderate searching of this tree is inefficient. Also,
the computer does not know what is happening in the game. It has no
feel for overall strategy (unless it is programmed in, and that is a
much more difficult task). Tree-searching methods are known as 'weak'
AI; a 'strong' AI approach involves some additional, more intelligent
techniques.
For instance, by using heuristics (rules of thumb) to ascertain the
viability of playing down a particular branch of a tree, the program can
'trim' its search tree and therefore is more efficient. Also, the
program can search backwards to see if desirable positions (as defined
by the programmer) can be reached somehow.
The point is, every technique the computer uses is programmed by
someone, and usually culled from human expertise. The computer relies
on rules that chess masters rely on, or at least think they do (one of
the problems of AI is getting human experts to validly explain how they
reason).
Obviously, opening books are an intregal component of human knowledge
that can easily be passed on to the computer. Humans study opening
books as well, and hardly work out openings on their own, for the most
part; they are the product of hundreds of years of chess playing.
Computers would likely fail without their opening book because of the
subtleties of openings, which would baffle a simple tree-searching
program. Likewise, a grandmaster with an eye for the whole game can
give even the best programs a run for their money. This will change
when these programs acquire rules that dictate their strategy as well as
their tactics.
Hope this helps.
--
Wintermute <3m...@qlink.queensu.ca> <http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3mal5/>
"If I really knew how to write, I could write something that someone
could read and it would kill them." - william s. burroughs
Keith A McGuigan
Nasser Abbasi <nab...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>The idea that chess is solved is in the sense that computers can beat any
>human chess player. If Karpov or Kasparov are not that easy to beat by
>the computer, well, it is just a matter of time, if not today, wait few
>months....
Ummm.. computers certainly cannot beat any human chess player in a tournament
style game. And a few months are not going to change that. Maybe a few years,
but I doubt that too.
>and by the way, computers did beat the world chamopin. I was there few
>feets from kasparov when he lost to chess genius on Pentium computer, and
>that was about 18 months ago! .. he left the stage dazed, shaking his
>head, he left the stage mad followed by his few body guards.. the same
>computer follwed this by beating few other GM's untill Anand was lucky to
>stop it..
What you are referring to was not a tournament style game. The game that
you are referring to was a five minute blitz game. And I'd have to say that
you may be right... in a five minute game, computers are good, cuz that's their
turf. If you place that same program, and the same computer in against
Kasparov in a 40 in 2 type of time control, the computer would be the one
that goes home crying.
>> If chess is solved, what is the solution?
>
>the solution is that it can beat you.
Obviously you underestimate my talents ;)
>please don't get technical on me by
>telling me about the large problem space and about all the atoms in the
>universe can't solve it and all that. that is not important to me. the
>important part is that computers can beat humans today. they have won,
>we have lost.
Now, now.. you're talking way to general here. A cat could be taught to
play chess in such a way that it could beat a few humans, but that doesn't
mean that cats have solved chess!
Just because some computer and some programs can beat _some_ (not all) people
does not mean that we've lost and they've won. It just means that they are
a competitor. Don't underestimate the human race. We have not lost - maybe
you have, maybe some other people have, but I did not. If you want, I'll
gladly send you some results of some of my more interesting defeats of
various computer programs.
>
>>No matter what, chess is still a game, and I will keep playing it
>because it's
>>a hobby, and amusement.
>
>no one is arguing that chess is not fun any more becuase computer
>can beat us. but that is not the point of this whole thread.
Please tell me, in your opinion, what is the point of the thread? It sounds
like it's just one uneducated mouth spouting off about stuff that he doesn't
really know about.
Randal J. Andrews
>It sounds like it's just one uneducated mouth spouting off about stuff
>that he doesn't really know about.
>
There are lots of threads like this all across the internet. In fact,
most human conversations anywhere can be described this way. If the
topic did not interest you why do you patiently answer point by point?
My point is that when a computer plays so strongly that even the world
champion cannot beat it, who will want to study chess? I can't imagine
that in the some (hopefully distant) future chess will command the kind
of devotion it enjoys today.
Of course, you may be right, too, that chess will always be played
and studied pretty much the way we do it today. To suggest that
someone who disagrees with you is an "uneducated mouth" is arrogant.
bluejack
: Mostly I'm still on the side that argues that I enjoy running even though
: cars go much faster than me and I'll never beat a machine in a race.
: But Halibut wrote that chess is different, because it's not just a matter
: of brute force. He may have a point. People used to worry about knowing
: how to do arithmethic, use log tables, and the like. Now we just make
: sure we have a spare battery for the calculator.
Meyer,
I dunno... I enjoy being able to arithmatic in my head: people think
I am some kind of genius when I am only doing what every fourth
grader in America could do sixty years ago. Cheap ego.
bluejack
ilias kastanas 08-14-90
Don Getkey <dong...@aol.com> wrote:
>In article <4dh5dv$j...@netope.harvard.edu>, Timothy Hanke
><ha...@harvarda.harvard.edu> writes:
>
>>Emanuel Lasker once said: "Chess is, above all else, a fight."
>>
>>Lasker is famous for playing the man, not the board. In other words, he
>>understood that *in a game between humans,* there is no objectively best
>>move. The best move is the one your opponent is least able to handle,
>>that's all.
>>
>>
>Here is a debate all it's own. Are the "Laskerians" right or are the , ,
>, uh, "Fischerians" right? Which side IS holding up the torch if truth?
>Those who believe what GM Lasker may have, as quoted above, or those who
>believe as GM Fischer; that there IS a certain absolute "truth" to search
>out in any position, and that your opponent is quite unrelated to it.
>That it is always best to search the board for the truth of the position,
>rather than the opponent. Many would say it is foolish chess to purposely
>play less than the best moves depending on how your opponent reacts, or
>how well you know him/her.
> But maybe the Laskerians are right after all? Maybe the "best move" is
>the move that deteriorates your specific opponents ability to respond.
>Different opponent different move. A kind of situational ethics in chess.
> Exploiting percieved weaknesses in the individuals line of thinking
>rather than the actual line of play. "Relativism" or "Absolutism"?
Lasker's record speaks for itself. The main part of his chess life
was between 1890 and 1925. He was World Champion most of that time. He
was 3d at Hastings, 2nd at Cambridge Springs (_good_ results in themselves)
... and in all other tournaments he was 1st. Everywhere, every time, he
was first. And he never lost a match other than the one with Capablanca.
Even in his old age, he played in Zuerich and Moscow and held his own against
the best. _No one_ has a record like his.
The "other", absolutist view should probably be named not after Fischer
but A. Rubinstein. ("Who is your opponent tonight?" "Tonight I am playing
against the Black pieces").
It is a mathematical fact that in every position there is one move that
is best -- in the game-theoretic sense. But your opponent cannot consisten-
tly find it. Neither can you. And the objective is to win.
Lasker's results against a given opponent only improved with time --
better "acquaintance" helped him much more than the opponent. He wrote that
making a move you know not to be objectively best is difficult, and borders
on schizophrenia. But if it is the strongest in that situation, you do it.
Hence his choice of two Pawns down rather than one against Tarrasch, and all
the rest. Also: you do not always resign when you see there is no hope...
otherwise opponents will know that if you are playing on there are swindling
chances.
Fischer did have "favorite lines", with points to prove about them, un-
like Lasker. But I don't think he "ignored the opponent and played the boa-
rd" all the time. By the way, it took some time before Fischer appreciated
Lasker's genius.
And no, there is nothing dishonest or morally questionable. It was
the same Lasker who wrote "lies and hypocrisy do not survive on the chess-
board". Lasker's calculated risk is no lie or deception. Chess is a game
of perfect information; it is all there, fully fair and no dice rolls or
cards to draw. Lasker chose a move; play yours.
Besides, people do use Lasker's approach. Strong players play against
weaker ones unlike they do against equals. People avoid others' favorite
openings and types of game. People defend inferior positions persistently.
More than one GM has said, you made a mistake? okay, you did, whatever the
reason; you are a good player, you now have this position... play it. Well,
maybe not with Lasker's skill and cool. Hort fell off his chair when Keres
played a Queen sacrifice. Champions have had amaurosis schaccistica, hang-
ing Rooks and Queens and mates. Lasker kept his calmness and composure; no
such indulgences, just pragmatism.
Notably, Lasker did not use extensive analysis/preparation... in fact
he had other interests too (e.g. Mathematics, he obtained significant results
about polynomial ideals). There is a split here; Alekhine prepared a lot,
Botvinnik even more; Capablanca did not even own a chess set. But Lasker did
have the rare ability to apply himself and use efficiently every aspect and
feature in a chess battle, more than anybody. His results with his approach
leave no doubt about its value.
Ilias
halibut
: My point is that when a computer plays so strongly that even the world
: champion cannot beat it, who will want to study chess? I can't imagine
: that in the some (hopefully distant) future chess will command the kind
: of devotion it enjoys today.
In the future, your chess program, that sees 60 ply into the
future, will be able to talk to you, and tell you what is wrong with any
candidate move you are considering. That kind of tutoring, on a global
level, will lead to increases in the general level of play, as well as a
great appreciation of the game.
Imagine being in a Sicilian Dragon 14 moves in, and for each of
the candidate moves, the computer tells you what is wrong with them. Some
lead to mate, others to loss in material. Totally impenetrable positions,
easily resolved.
Nasser Abbasi
>
>In article <4ebgkh$9...@qualcomm.com>,
>Nasser Abbasi <nab...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>
>>and by the way, computers did beat the world chamopin. I was there few
>>feets from kasparov when he lost to chess genius on Pentium computer,
>
> What you are referring to was not a tournament style game. The game that
>you are referring to was a five minute blitz game.
No it was not a 5 minutes game. that was the London PCA grand prix, in
fall of 1984, it was either a 25 minutes game each or 30 minutes game
each, not sure which, most likely 30 minutes.
>>no one is arguing that chess is not fun any more becuase computer
>>can beat us. but that is not the point of this whole thread.
>
> Please tell me, in your opinion, what is the point of the thread?
you still have not figured that out?
Ok, I'll try to explain simply. the point is that for some people
chess might not be a thing that they would have a motivation to study
or take as seriously now as befor, it is still lots of fun to play, but
not to devote ones whole life and time for becuase no matter how much
you try, you'll lose to a machine. for some that does not matter, for
other that might matter.
>It sounds
>like it's just one uneducated mouth spouting off about stuff that he
>doesn't really know about.
ok, you certinaly sound like a very educated person indeed. no argument
there.
Nasser
Benjamin J. Tilly
hal...@cnct.com (halibut) writes:
> Randal J. Andrews (tig...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
>
> : My point is that when a computer plays so strongly that even the world
> : champion cannot beat it, who will want to study chess? I can't imagine
> : that in the some (hopefully distant) future chess will command the kind
> : of devotion it enjoys today.
>
> In the future, your chess program, that sees 60 ply into the
> future, will be able to talk to you, and tell you what is wrong with any
> candidate move you are considering. That kind of tutoring, on a global
> level, will lead to increases in the general level of play, as well as a
> great appreciation of the game.
>
1) When is there going to be a computer that sees 60 ply into the
future?
2) Even if there was, it would be probably unable to explain to you
what is wrong with your moves. It would be like having your own
personal endings database except it is not an endgame. And you would
have as little idea why *this* is the right move as you do presently
trying to understand some of the plans in the databases. (Which GMs
have trouble figuring out, even when they can see what the database
says.)
> Imagine being in a Sicilian Dragon 14 moves in, and for each of
> the candidate moves, the computer tells you what is wrong with them. Some
> lead to mate, others to loss in material. Totally impenetrable positions,
> easily resolved.
Oh? If it was analyzing that far in advance it would not be able to
say, for instance, you lose that knight. You see what is wrong with a
particular move is that, for every thing you do from then on in, you
wind up with some sort of problem. But the problems are different
depending on which line you follow from there.
In fact my bet is that the opening has been more completely analyzed
*by people* than it will be possible to do by super-computers in the
next decade.
Ben Tilly
Patrick Leung
: In article <4ejems$b...@cnct.com>
: hal...@cnct.com (halibut) writes:
: > Randal J. Andrews (tig...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >
: > : My point is that when a computer plays so strongly that even the world
: > : champion cannot beat it, who will want to study chess? I can't imagine
: > : that in the some (hopefully distant) future chess will command the kind
: > : of devotion it enjoys today.
Chess has been around for hundreds of years.
You think people will cease to study chess because computer chess programs
today are so strong people will no longer be able to beat them?
I disagree with you.
I think people will continue playing chess regardless of the standings of
computer chess programs today and in the future. Chess is a very fun game,
and there's no reason to quit.
The fun in playing chess is not to win, but to give your best possible
performance and try to outwit your opponent.
I also think the same is true of just about any other strategy game.
I've won and lost many games over the internet with many strong players
from other parts of the world on ics.
Nevertheless, I think I enjoyed playing the
games I lost just as equally as the games I won. If I lost a game because
my initial plan failed, then I would have an opportunity to learn why it
did not work. On the other hand, if I succeeded and won, then I would try
and remember to use the same tatic on other players.
: 1) When is there going to be a computer that sees 60 ply into the
: future?
Depends on what you mean. Do you mean to see 60 ply within real-time??
within say 10-20 seconds? or several hours? several weeks/months/years?
One of the reasons for using lookup tables and hash tables in computer
chess is speed up the search time. We try to do as much of the searching
as possible before hand, and simply store this data into hash tables.
: In fact my bet is that the opening has been more completely analyzed
: *by people* than it will be possible to do by super-computers in the
: next decade.
: Ben Tilly
Whatever the case, I definitely think that computer chess programs of today
and the future will be able to help us understand chess (problems) more.
I don't see any harm done by make computer chess programs as "smart" or
play as "well" as we possibly can.
Patrick
Glenn Wilson
: In article <4dm1ll$g...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
: Don Getkey <dong...@aol.com> wrote:
: >In article <4dh5dv$j...@netope.harvard.edu>, Timothy Hanke
: ><ha...@harvarda.harvard.edu> writes:
: >
: >>Emanuel Lasker once said: "Chess is, above all else, a fight."
: >>
: >>Lasker is famous for playing the man, not the board. In other words, he
: >>understood that *in a game between humans,* there is no objectively best
: >>move. The best move is the one your opponent is least able to handle,
: >>that's all.
: >>
: >>
: >Here is a debate all it's own. Are the "Laskerians" right or are the , ,
: >, uh, "Fischerians" right? Which side IS holding up the torch if truth?
: Lasker's record speaks for itself. The main part of his chess life
: was between 1890 and 1925. He was World Champion most of that time. He
: was 3d at Hastings, 2nd at Cambridge Springs (_good_ results in themselves)
: ... and in all other tournaments he was 1st. Everywhere, every time, he
: was first. And he never lost a match other than the one with Capablanca.
: Even in his old age, he played in Zuerich and Moscow and held his own against
: the best. _No one_ has a record like his.
But how different would his results have been if he had played the
objectively "best" move he could find? Unless we know that it is
mere speculation to attribute his results to "playing the man." I
know quite a few chess players who do that with far less success than
Lasker. Maybe he was also *real* good.
: The "other", absolutist view should probably be named not after Fischer
: but A. Rubinstein. ("Who is your opponent tonight?" "Tonight I am playing
: against the Black pieces").
: It is a mathematical fact that in every position there is one move that
: is best -- in the game-theoretic sense. But your opponent cannot consisten-
: tly find it. Neither can you. And the objective is to win.
I do not believe this is fact and could give some counter-examples
that prove it wrong. However, it may be true in many or most positions.
BTW: the "correct" objective, in some positions is to draw.
<snip>
: Besides, people do use Lasker's approach. Strong players play against
: weaker ones unlike they do against equals. People avoid others' favorite
: openings and types of game. People defend inferior positions persistently.
<snip>
Yes, they do. When computers get "good enough" they may have to resort
to Lasker's approach as the "objectively best" move may be one that allows
the human to see a line that draws. Instead, they may play a move that
does not lose but greatly complicates the position increasing the
practical chances for the computer to win.
bill...@ljo.dec.com
> I dunno... I enjoy being able to arithmatic in my head: people think
> I am some kind of genius when I am only doing what every fourth
> grader in America could do sixty years ago. Cheap ego.
>
> bluejack
It's hard to argue with bluejack because I agree with him too; I was
speaking for the vast majority, I suppose. Actually, one of my
favorite activities is to go grocery shopping with my wife, and while
she loads the cart I keep a running total of the tab, along with
tax on non-food items. Then just before the cashier rings the total,
I announce it. You get interesting reactions; the best is when the
person behind the register realizes they heard an "echo" but can't
quite figure out why...
--------------------------------------------------------------
Meyer A. Billmers Digital Equipment Corporation
bill...@ljo.dec.com Internet Collaboration Software
(508)486-2679
Herbert Pohlai
Well, it was never easier than now!
You can always get advice (at least tactical advice now, hopefully
strategic advice soon) from your computer, whenever a question pops up.
It's much easier to go through the openings with a good database at hand,
and the information you can get is much more up to date than
let's say 20 years ago.
And after a lost game, you have always a strong 'player' ready
for analyzing what went wrong.
Herbert Pohlai
PS; I don't see the computer as an opponent, but as a good friend
who helps me to improve my playing strenght.
Benjamin J. Tilly
ple...@cs.buffalo.edu (Patrick Leung) writes:
> Benjamin J. Tilly (Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu) wrote:
> : In article <4ejems$b...@cnct.com>
[...]
> : 1) When is there going to be a computer that sees 60 ply into the
> : future?
>
> Depends on what you mean. Do you mean to see 60 ply within real-time??
> within say 10-20 seconds? or several hours? several weeks/months/years?
>
In a typical opening/middlegame position be able to see it within
hours. (Which is about as slow as you would care to have it do it while
using it to analyze your game. I would prefer within minutes but...)
> One of the reasons for using lookup tables and hash tables in computer
> chess is speed up the search time. We try to do as much of the searching
> as possible before hand, and simply store this data into hash tables.
>
So do people. Which is one of the reasons for studying tactical tricks
and analyzing positions that come up in the openings that you use...
> : In fact my bet is that the opening has been more completely analyzed
> : *by people* than it will be possible to do by super-computers in the
> : next decade.
>
> : Ben Tilly
>
> Whatever the case, I definitely think that computer chess programs of today
> and the future will be able to help us understand chess (problems) more.
> I don't see any harm done by make computer chess programs as "smart" or
> play as "well" as we possibly can.
Neither do I. However I think that people who casually claim that
computers will soon reach incredible search depths need to think again.
Isn't Deep Blue aiming for 14 ply at tournament time controls? I forget
the figures but the increase in amount of speed needed to search each
extra ply is exponential, as is the amount of speed that we can get
each year, leading to a roughly linear increase in ply over time, and
then there is a roughly linear increase in skill with ply. (At least if
I remember what Robertt Hyatt had to say last summer correctly.) If we
have only reached 14 ply for tournament time controls after all of the
time that we have, I do not think that we need to worry about 60 ply at
any time in the near future...(and switching to postal speeds only adds
in a few more ply because it takes an exponential amount of more time
to add in each ply, diminishing returns effectively limits what you can
do by taking longer).
Ben Tilly
Tim Farris Kadom
>Let's suppose that they allow a computer to take part in the next
>battle for the world championship...and let's also assume that it
>gets as far as competing against kasparov for the next world
>championship match, let's even assume that it wins. fine. so a
>computer is now the world champion. do you think now humans will
>surrender? bah! we will be back, and we will be triumphant. GO
>KASPAROV GO!
>
Charming,
But not very realistic. Would you offer to sprint against
a formula1 race car? Would you test your strength against a forklift?
Perhaps when the first cars came out, you would have been able to outsprint
them. Perhaps the strongest men were able to lift more than the first
forklifts... but technology is constantly improving, and man does have
limitations.
The question really is, where are the limitations for technology,
in particular what will limit chess programs? Currently this is probably
mostly process space, and processor speed. We know that these limits have
been expanding at astonishing rates since the introduction of the first
microcomputers. 10 years ago computers didn't beat grand masters. Now they do.
Before long they will beat the best of the grandmasters regularly, and when that
day comes, I don't know where you get the idea that humans would somehow
romantically rise to the challenge and grow bigger brains. As a species we have
not improved all that dramatically in the past 2000 years. Certainly not
as dramatically as computers have (in a physical computational sense).
What then is the interest in competing against machines? Perhaps machines
competing against machines will hold some interest. If and when machines surpass
our top GM's there will be no looking back for technology. Chess will still
remain an interesting challenge for Humans. The fact that computers may be
able to play it better or even to perfection will not diminish the struggle and
combat between the human players. I see no reason for lumping computers in with
the human players to play for the world championship. They are not in the
same league. Two different categories altogether. You don't see featherweights
contending for the heavyweight title for the same reason - it isnt fair.
Nothing would ever stop a human player from challenging the top computer, but
other than serving as an indicator of comparative strength such a match means
nothing. chess was designed by humans for humans. The fact that computers
can play chess only has meaning for the programmers of the world. It may diminish
the struggle somewhat to know that a computer could play the game better, but
a computer isn't human, and the struggle is ultimately between humans.
Why do we still have the olympics? who cares how far a man or a woman can
throw a javelin? It may have meant something when javelins were thrown in war,
but what does it mean now? besides the competitive element there really isn't
much to the olympics. It is all about who is best, and in chess it will
always remain that way as well. I am sure anyone could design a machine that
would launch a javelin further than any man could throw it, but no one would
really care would they?
-Tim
--
"sometimes you are the windshield...
sometimes you are the bug"
-Dire Straits
MAdE
Bruce Moreland
>[snip]
>Yes, they do. When computers get "good enough" they may have to resort
>to Lasker's approach as the "objectively best" move may be one that allows
>the human to see a line that draws. Instead, they may play a move that
>does not lose but greatly complicates the position increasing the
>practical chances for the computer to win.
They are already having to do this in some cases. If your program has a KRB
vs KR database, and you reach a "drawn" position, it is "objectively" no
better to try to mate the weaker side than it is to trade rooks, throw away
the bishop, or throw away the rook, to reach drawn KR vs KR or KB vs KR
endings. Programs have to have some rudimentary understanding of "winning
chances" in these endings or they'll play worse with the database than
without it.
I have a bug in my program right now. If it is in a KQP vs KR ending, and
can win the pawn, it won't, because it knows that KQ vs KR is "lost".
bruce
Chris Lott
>Charming,
> But not very realistic. Would you offer to sprint against
>a formula1 race car? Would you test your strength against a forklift?
>Perhaps when the first cars came out, you would have been able to outsprint
>them. Perhaps the strongest men were able to lift more than the first
>forklifts... but technology is constantly improving, and man does have
>limitations.
But this is the point... even if (or when) computers can always beat any human,
that in no way detracts from the game just as having formula 1 race cars does
not detract from people still sprinting!
We could, I am sure, create machines that do just about any single
sporting/gaming thing better than humans, whether it be throwing a baseball,
boxing, whatever-- but this doesn't stop us from competing!!
The question is, why do we even compare ourselves to chess programs when we
don't compare ourselves to forklifts or sprint cars? They are apples and
oranges...
> The question really is, where are the limitations for technology,
>in particular what will limit chess programs? Currently this is probably
>mostly process space, and processor speed. We know that these limits have
>been expanding at astonishing rates since the introduction of the first
>microcomputers. 10 years ago computers didn't beat grand masters. Now they do.
>Before long they will beat the best of the grandmasters regularly, and when that
>day comes, I don't know where you get the idea that humans would somehow
>romantically rise to the challenge and grow bigger brains. As a species we have
>not improved all that dramatically in the past 2000 years. Certainly not
>as dramatically as computers have (in a physical computational sense).
Very true...
>What then is the interest in competing against machines? Perhaps machines
>competing against machines will hold some interest. If and when machines surpass
>our top GM's there will be no looking back for technology. Chess will still
>remain an interesting challenge for Humans. The fact that computers may be
>able to play it better or even to perfection will not diminish the struggle and
>combat between the human players. I see no reason for lumping computers in with
>the human players to play for the world championship. They are not in the
>same league. Two different categories altogether. You don't see featherweights
>contending for the heavyweight title for the same reason - it isnt fair.
Exactly!
--
Chris Lott
fn...@aurora.alaska.edu
Graham Laight
--
Graham Laight
Graham...@largotim.co.uk
Allan Trojan
>Neither do I. However I think that people who casually claim that
>computers will soon reach incredible search depths need to think again.
>Isn't Deep Blue aiming for 14 ply at tournament time controls? I forget
>the figures but the increase in amount of speed needed to search each
>extra ply is exponential,
A rough rule of thumb: let T(p) be the amount of time required to
search ply p.
then T(p+1)/T(p) approximately equals square root (#of possible moves)
> as is the amount of speed that we can get
>each year, leading to a roughly linear increase in ply over time, and
>then there is a roughly linear increase in skill with ply. (At least if
>I remember what Robertt Hyatt had to say last summer correctly.) If we
>have only reached 14 ply for tournament time controls after all of the
>time that we have, I do not think that we need to worry about 60 ply at
>any time in the near future..
I disagree. Have you heard about research into DNA computers?
and Adelman's work on the travelling salesman problem?
My personal opinion is that the game of chess will be completely solved within
the next 50 years.
+------------------------------------------+
| Allan Trojan: atr...@yorku.ca |
| ak20...@sol.yorku.ca |
| |
+------------------------------------------+
Jack Jeffery
--
Jack Jeffery
Check out the Fairfax County Chess Club Web Site at
http://www.clark.net/pub/jeffery/fccc/fccc.htm
Tim Farris Kadom wrote:
> Charming,
>
> But not very realistic. Would you offer to sprint against
> a formula1 race car? Would you test your strength against a forklift?
> Perhaps when the first cars came out, you would have been able to outsprint
> them. Perhaps the strongest men were able to lift more than the first
> forklifts... but technology is constantly improving, and man does have
> limitations.
> The question really is, where are the limitations for technology,
> in particular what will limit chess programs? Currently this is probably
> mostly process space, and processor speed. We know that these limits have
> been expanding at astonishing rates since the introduction of the first
> microcomputers. 10 years ago computers didn't beat grand masters. Now they do.
> Before long they will beat the best of the grandmasters regularly, and when that
> day comes, I don't know where you get the idea that humans would somehow
> romantically rise to the challenge and grow bigger brains. As a species we have
> not improved all that dramatically in the past 2000 years. Certainly not
> as dramatically as computers have (in a physical computational sense).
>
> What then is the interest in competing against machines? Perhaps machines
> competing against machines will hold some interest. If and when machines surpass
> our top GM's there will be no looking back for technology. Chess will still
> remain an interesting challenge for Humans. The fact that computers may be
> able to play it better or even to perfection will not diminish the struggle and
> combat between the human players. I see no reason for lumping computers in with
> the human players to play for the world championship. They are not in the
> same league. Two different categories altogether. You don't see featherweights
> contending for the heavyweight title for the same reason - it isnt fair.
>
Nasser Abbasi
>
>The question is, why do we even compare ourselves to chess programs when
>we
>don't compare ourselves to forklifts or sprint cars? They are apples and
>oranges...
>
the answer is simple.
Chess is an intellectuall activity, involoving imagination and
creativity, forklifting (is there such a sport?) is not.
That is why when a human loses to a machine in chess, it goes to the
heart of our soles as humans.
By the way, on sports that is based on physical attributes, I also think
the whole Olympics games is very silly and stupied thing. To gather a
bunch of big boys and girls to a place to see who can throw a steal ball
further, or who can jump over a stick higher or who can run faster, or
who can cross the swimming pool first and people running around a ball
to see who can stick it inside a baskett 8 feet up and the rest of it,
and on top of it to spend millions of dollars to make such an event is
one of dumpest (sp?) things we human still do.
IMHO
Nasser
Ron Moskovitz
Nasser,
I guess I just don't think that "intellectual" is that completely different
than "physical". It's just a different set of attributes of our bodies.
Now, it so happens that we understand the mechanisms physical attributes
(muscles, etc.) much better than we do the mechanisms of intellectual
ones (how the brain works), but they are both just attributes of our
physical manifestations.
-Ron
Alex Lane
: >
: > : My point is that when a computer plays so strongly that even the world
: > : champion cannot beat it, who will want to study chess? I can't imagine
: > : that in the some (hopefully distant) future chess will command the kind
: > : of devotion it enjoys today.
When machines become so powerful that the fastest human cannot outrun it,
or the strongest human cannot lift more weight than it can, who will want
to take up track and field events? When machines become so powerful that
they are capable of rendering images photographically, who will want to
take up oil painting?
Cheers...
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Alex Lane, TechTrans International | finger/email: alex...@cris.com
2200 Space Park Drive, Ste. 410 | voice (713) 335-8000; fax -0893
Houston TX 77058 | PGP fingerprint: 7FDB06E2478479B4 323CA94865AA5BC2
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Don Fong
Nasser Abbasi <nab...@qualcomm.com> wrote:
>By the way, on sports that is based on physical attributes, I also think
>the whole Olympics games is very silly and stupied thing. To gather a
>bunch of big boys and girls to a place to see who can throw a steal ball
>further, or who can jump over a stick higher or who can run faster, or
>who can cross the swimming pool first and people running around a ball
>to see who can stick it inside a baskett 8 feet up and the rest of it,
>and on top of it to spend millions of dollars to make such an event is
>one of dumpest (sp?) things we human still do.
shiny metal... or in modern times, bits of paper... and currently,
bits of bits.
a lot of "civilized" human activities make no sense from a narrow
intellectual standpoint. but they make more sense if you remember that
humans are basically competitive social animals.
chess is an exception, it doesn't make sense no matter which way
you try to look at it. (:-)
let's face it, it is DUMB to devote hours, days, years, of our lives
choreographing the motions of little pieces of wood. or analyzing the
efforts of others who are doing it. or spend hundreds of $$ on books,
equipment, s/w, etc, all to become better at this USELESS activity.
(and an even bigger waste of time is people beating the computer the
same way over and over again; they may be getting "rating points", but
they aren't getting better.)
--
--- don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
--
Andreas Wicker
(snip)
: a lot of "civilized" human activities make no sense from a narrow
: intellectual standpoint. but they make more sense if you remember that
: humans are basically competitive social animals.
: chess is an exception, it doesn't make sense no matter which way
: you try to look at it. (:-)
: let's face it, it is DUMB to devote hours, days, years, of our lives
: choreographing the motions of little pieces of wood. or analyzing the
: efforts of others who are doing it. or spend hundreds of $$ on books,
: equipment, s/w, etc, all to become better at this USELESS activity.
: (and an even bigger waste of time is people beating the computer the
: same way over and over again; they may be getting "rating points", but
: they aren't getting better.)
: --
: --- don fong ``i still want the peace dividend''
: --
Do any human activities make any sense at all, from an intellectual
standpoint?
Bye,
--
Andreas Wicker, Mail:wic...@mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de
So far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not
certain, and so far as they are certain, they do not refer to
reality. (A. Einstein)
Nasser Abbasi
wic...@mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de says...
>
>Do any human activities make any sense at all, from an intellectual
>standpoint?
>Bye,
Any thing that is intellectually stimulating is worth while doing, I find
things/games that are only physically stimulating very silly and very
boring.
Nasser
Quinn Hubbard
writes:
The above implies far too great a degree of similarity between the body
and the mind. Would the poster opine that a keyboard and a cpu are
"both just plastic parts of a computer?" Someone once said Usenet is a
sewer. Meaningless posts authored by narrow minded computer geeks
importantly grasping a tiny shred of reason as a basis for an
argumentative post, like the above, serve as evidence. (Notice also
the helpful contents of his parentheticals for us dolts who couldn't
follow his "point" all by themselves.)
Oops, sorry, I've been in a foul mood recently ...
Wintermute
> I disagree. Have you heard about research into DNA computers?
> and Adelman's work on the travelling salesman problem?
> My personal opinion is that the game of chess will be completely solved within
> the next 50 years.
Something tells me that neither chess nor the travelling salesthing problem will ever really be solved. But, useful approximations =
already exist and will get better.
--
Wintermute <3m...@qlink.queensu.ca> <http://qlink.queensu.ca/~3mal5/>
"If I really knew how to write, I could write something that someone
could read and it would kill them." - william s. burroughs
Ron Moskovitz
can make intelligent distinctions between them.
Would you please explain how the brain works? Thanks.
When you feel like being a jerk, don't expect us to accept it because
you've "been in a foul mood lately". You are still being a jerk.
Why should we treat "intellectual" as fundamentally different than
"physical?" Because machines have already beaten us at one but not the
other? You are so convinced there is an important difference, so
explain it to us.
Or shut up. It doesn't help anyone to have you complain about the sewer
while pumping your own shit into it.
-Ron
Andreas Wicker
(snip)
: Why should we treat "intellectual" as fundamentally different than
: "physical?" Because machines have already beaten us at one but not the
: other? You are so convinced there is an important difference, so
: explain it to us.
Why?
1. Because mankind was, before computers began to 'think', the only
thing known that was able to think. Therefore the human brain
was really unique in the whole world. This is completely different
to physical strength. Mankind was never as strong as a lion or
a tree or a simple stormy sea.
2. Now, as computers begin to beat the human brain, mankind
loses its uniqueness. That's all
Bye,
Andreas
Benjamin J. Tilly
wic...@mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de (Andreas Wicker) writes:
> Ron Moskovitz (rm...@netcom.com) wrote:
> (snip)
> : Why should we treat "intellectual" as fundamentally different than
> : "physical?" Because machines have already beaten us at one but not the
> : other? You are so convinced there is an important difference, so
> : explain it to us.
> (snip)
>
> Why?
> 1. Because mankind was, before computers began to 'think', the only
> thing known that was able to think. Therefore the human brain
> was really unique in the whole world. This is completely different
> to physical strength. Mankind was never as strong as a lion or
> a tree or a simple stormy sea.
>
Say what? Studies of animal behavior have shown quite definitely that a
variety of animals are capable of complex thought. In fact some are
better in various respects than we are!
> 2. Now, as computers begin to beat the human brain, mankind
> loses its uniqueness. That's all
The same was said when Jane Goodall found out that chimps use tools of
a simple sort that they construct themselves. A variety of other
animals have since been found to do the same thing. Then she found that
chimps have wars. About all that we were left with was getting drunk.
(A variety of animals have languages of various sorts.) Then
stressed-out wild elephants were found knocking over fruit trees,
keeping everything away until the fruit fermented, and then having a
wild party. (I am not making this up!)
Of course we appear to be the only ones to have achieved a consistent
techonological progress. But then again, how many people *really*
participate in that? Does the typical human?
Ben Tilly
Chris Lott
>Chess is an intellectuall activity, involoving imagination and
>creativity, forklifting (is there such a sport?) is not.
>That is why when a human loses to a machine in chess, it goes to the
>heart of our soles as humans.
I think what is going to happen is that computers becoming invincible will
simply change what our definition of chess is--
The fun and art and enjoyment of chess all lie in more than just mastery. I am
sure there will be painting machines which will be able to paint better than any
human (someday) and will, in fact, be able to do so in different "styles" so
well that we will not be able to tell the difference between them and a human
product-- but people will still paint.
You don't like sports, but I like skiing-- it is more than "just physical", but
who cares if there is a level at which I can never compete? I will likely never
be a master at chess, but I will keep playing.
Chess is essentially, at the highest level, mathematical. Since we do not have
the capability of processing in a way that we can understand the game solely
that way, we have intuitions and art and style, etc. Those will always be
valuable to humans and will always keep the game enjoyable, computer mastery
notwithstanding.
Doesn't matter if it is an "art" or a "sport" or what have you-- it is different
in each case, but fundamentally the same. Of course, the proof will be if (when)
computers do reach that level, whether people will still play or not. If we live
that long I will gladly place a wager that just as many people as before, if not
more, will be playing...
c
--
Chris Lott
fn...@aurora.alaska.edu
Eric Martin
discussing this essentially pointless topic, you'd know why to study
chess anymore.
Bruce Moreland
>atr...@yorku.ca (Allan Trojan) wrote:
>> My personal opinion is that the game of chess will be completely solved
within
>> the next 50 years.
Yeah right. And we'll also be able to get to Alpha Centauri by tapping our
heels together three times.
We're a LOT of orders of magnitude away from solving chess.
bruce
Brian Karen
Hubbard ) writes:
>
>In <rmoskDM...@netcom.com> rm...@netcom.com (Ron Moskovitz)
>writes:
>>
>>
>> Nasser,
>>
>> I guess I just don't think that "intellectual" is that completely
>different
>>than "physical". It's just a different set of attributes of our
>bodies.
>>Now, it so happens that we understand the mechanisms physical
>attributes
>>(muscles, etc.) much better than we do the mechanisms of intellectual
>>ones (how the brain works), but they are both just attributes of our
>>physical manifestations.
>>
>>-Ron
>
>The above implies far too great a degree of similarity between the
body
>and the mind. Would the poster opine that a keyboard and a cpu are
>"both just plastic parts of a computer?"
I dont know what the poster would say but I think they are both just
plastic parts of a computer.
Someone once said Usenet is a
>sewer. Meaningless posts authored by narrow minded computer geeks
>importantly grasping a tiny shred of reason as a basis for an
>argumentative post, like the above, serve as evidence.
I tend to agree with his post. In fact, this debate goes all the way
back to Descartes who argued that humans are really just complex
machines. Of course, many people disagree and talk about the soul, etc.
but I can see the poster's point of view. I certainly don't think it
is worthy of being flamed. -Naisortep/Brian Karen
Ron Moskovitz
Chris Lott <fn...@aurora.alaska.edu> wrote:
>Doesn't matter if it is an "art" or a "sport" or what have you--
>it is different in each case, but fundamentally the same. Of course,
>the proof will be if (when) computers do reach that level,
>whether people will still play or not. If we live
>that long I will gladly place a wager that just as many people
>as before, if not more, will be playing...
>--
>Chris Lott
>fn...@aurora.alaska.edu
>
<editted for linelength to prevent wraparound on my machine>
I agree with Chris, but would like to take his argument one step further:
I think you could argue very easily that for practical purposes, we have
reached the point where computers, for most of us, are invincible.
Unless we are extremely vain, most of us have to know that we are not, and
will never be, grandmasters--yet there are now computers that play on the
level of the very highest grandmaster, computers in the price range of the
average western household.
Has this discouraged people from playing chess? On the contrary, more people
play chess today than ever before. News books on chess are bought every
day by people, like myself, who will never compete with the best computers
but still want to get better. New books are published while the old ones
are re-eddited into algebraic notation, and they all sell well. People
still want to learn and improve.
There is no evidence to suggest that this will change when computers get
better by the fractional amount it will take to make them better, consistently,
than even the best chess players. For all the theory has been spouted about
a defeat of the human spirit, I have yet to see any evidence to suggest that
the existence of excellent computers has discouraged-in any way!-people from
working to improve their games.
I agree with Chris, I would take his side of the wager without question, but
I don't think it's a question of "if we live long enough". For the overwhelming
majority of us, we're already there.
-Ron
Allan Trojan
Yes, and 50 years ago we were LOTS of orders of magnitude away from
creating a computer that could defeat a 5 year old child
(or even having a computer that could play by the rules.)
Regards, Allan Trojan
+------------------------------------------+
| Allan Trojan: atr...@yorku.ca |
| ak20...@sol.yorku.ca |
| 72072...@compuserve.com |
+------------------------------------------+
Joe Stella
>Herbert Mann <Her...@aol.com> writes:
>> Who wrote the programs? Who designed the computers? Who will write the
>>program that beats Deep Blue?
>> Don't take such a narrow view of human uniqueness!
>> Herb
Forget it, Herb. I said this very same thing twice already, but no one wants
to listen.
Joe S.
Herbert Mann
What's that you say?: As computers begin to beat humans at chess, we lose our
uniqueness.
Bob Long
memorize the solution? Could anyone. The four color map problem was
proved by a computer years ago. I know of no math types who can reproduce
it. An existing "solution" today would not diminish my love of the game.
Bob Long
Allan Trojan
>
>
>>atr...@yorku.ca (Allan Trojan) wrote:
>>> My personal opinion is that the game of chess will be completely solved
>within
>>> the next 50 years.
>
>Yeah right. And we'll also be able to get to Alpha Centauri by tapping our
>heels together three times.
>
>We're a LOT of orders of magnitude away from solving chess.
>
>bruce
Those without imagination ALWAYS project the past into the future in this type of fashion:
"X years from now cars ( airplanes, spaceships, computers, etc) will be F(X) times as fast"
(For F(X) choose your favorite function. The pundits in this newsgroup seem to
like F(X) = K exp (X), at least when applied to chess computers).
Myself, I prefer the prediction "Whatever technological problem whose solution can be
precisely defined eventually will be solved." (As well as many technological problems
whose very definition we cannot even imagine.)
Adelman has made the observation that there are many 'substances' which could be
used to create computers. "Why not DNA?" he asked. Indeed. Why not even the sub
atomic particles?
My prediction: Chess and the Travelling Salesman problem will be completely solved
within the next 50 years. Within the next 100 years all present outstanding mathematical
conjectures will be settled by computer programmes.
Cheers,
Allan Trojan, Toronto, Canada
Ron Moskovitz
Andreas Wicker <wic...@mvmap66.ciw.uni-karlsruhe.de> wrote:
>Ron Moskovitz (rm...@netcom.com) wrote:
>(snip)
>: Why should we treat "intellectual" as fundamentally different than
>: "physical?" Because machines have already beaten us at one but not the
>: other? You are so convinced there is an important difference, so
>: explain it to us.
>(snip)
>
>Why?
>1. Because mankind was, before computers began to 'think', the only
>thing known that was able to think. Therefore the human brain
>was really unique in the whole world. This is completely different
>to physical strength. Mankind was never as strong as a lion or
>a tree or a simple stormy sea.
>
Mankind has always been the best thinker, but it is flat-out false that
mankind has been the only thinker. Animals think. Primates have shown
logical reasoning ability.
Furthermore, if this is the argument, why is it not troublesome that
computers have been able to solve complex mathematical functions faster
than humans (and more accurately) for a long time now?
If the argument is about uniqueness, why should chess be the barometer?
jlu...@hoflink.com
On 14 Feb 1996, Garby Leon wrote:
[deletia]
> Game 3 score, from IBM's web page --
>
> 1. e4 c5 2. c3 d5 3. exd5 Qxd5 4. d4 Nf6 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. Be2 e6 7. o-o
> Nc6 8. Be3 cxd4 9. cxd4 Bb4 10. a3 Ba5 11. Nc3 Qd6 12. Ne5 Bxe2 13.
> Qxe2 Bxc3 14. bxc3 Nxe5 15. Bf4 Nf3 16.Qxf3 Qd5 17. Qd3 Rc8 18. Rfc1
> Qc4 19. Qxc4 Rxc4 20. Rcb1 b6 21. Bb8 Ra4 22. Rb4 Ra5 23. Rc4 O-O 24.
> Bd6 Ra8 25. Rc6 b5 26. Kf1 Ra4 27. Rb1 a6 28. Ke2 h5 29. Kd3 Rd8 30.
> Be7 Rd7 31. Bxf6 gxf6 32. Rb3 Kg7 33. Ke3 e5 34. g3 exd4 35. cxd4 Re7
> 36. Kf3 Rd7 37. Rd3 Raxd4 38. Rxd4 Rxd4 39. Rxa6
>
> DRAW
>
As we saw in the Kasparov-Anand match, scores posted on a web page are
not authoritative. If you read the commentary at the same site, you'll
see that the move 39...b4 was played by Kasparov before a draw was
agreed. This is confirmed by Robert Byrne's column at the NY Times website.
.
Jason Luchan
Garby Leon
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.computer
Subject: Re: Deep Blue vs. Kasparov #3 - Score
References: <fowellDM...@netcom.com>
In <fowellDM...@netcom.com> fow...@netcom.com (Richard A. Fowell)
writes:
>
>Same opening as Game #1.
>
>Kasparov offered draw at move 39 in Rook & Pawn ending.
>
>Next game is Wednesday.
>
>Game score, anyone?
>
>fow...@netcom.com (Richard A. Fowell)
Allan Trojan
>
>In article <4fmv3v$d...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>
>atr...@yorku.ca (Allan Trojan) writes:
>
>> Myself, I prefer the prediction "Whatever technological problem whose solution can be
>> precisely defined eventually will be solved." (As well as many technological problems
>> whose very definition we cannot even imagine.)
>>
>There are some problems which have been shown to be utterly impossible
>to solve. The most infamous is the halting problem. (Can you write a
>program to check whether another finite program with given finite data
>will halt? No.)
More infamous is determining who shaves the barber.
>> Adelman has made the observation that there are many 'substances' which could be
>> used to create computers. "Why not DNA?" he asked. Indeed. Why not even the sub
>> atomic particles?
>>
>DNA computers, while "cool", are somewhat impractical.
(Now. My understanding is that enormous progress has been
made in just a few months. I suspect DNA computers will
be in use much sooner than we expect.)
> Sub-atomic
>particles have the unfortunate tendancy that they do not like to stay
>around for long...
No at this time we have no way to control them.
There was a time, not so long ago, when we had no means
to control electrons or electromagnetic fields.
>
>> My prediction: Chess and the Travelling Salesman problem will be completely solved
>> within the next 50 years. Within the next 100 years all present outstanding mathematical
>> conjectures will be settled by computer programmes.
>
>FACT: It has been demonstrated that there is a physical upper limit on
>what traditional computers can achieve.
I am not, of course, thinking about traditional computers.
>As for chess? It has
>enough quirky rules, and the problem is big enough, that it may well be
>impossible to solve chess.
The problem is only a wee bit bigger than the travelling salesman problem.
How do you distinguish between a quirky rule and a non-quirky rule?
>
>Oh, and about "all present outstanding mathematical conjectures", it is
>rather likely that one or three of them are completely unsolvable, and
>unverifiably so. (The twin prime problem has been put mentioned as a
>potential example of such a problem. Of course we will never know that
>it is if, in fact, it is.)
My hunch is that no well-known conjecture is unsolvable in the Godelian
sense. All non-solvable problems probably reduce to a variant of the
problem of determining who shaves the barber. (Every man in town
either shaves himself or is shaved by the barber.) Not a very interesting
problem IMHO. Such problems probably have no mathematical content.
Michael L Wilson
>In article <4g2qd9$o...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) says:
>>
>>In article <4fmv3v$d...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca> atr...@yorku.ca (Allan Trojan) writes:
>
>>Oh, and about "all present outstanding mathematical conjectures", it is
>>rather likely that one or three of them are completely unsolvable, and
>>unverifiably so. (The twin prime problem has been put mentioned as a
>>potential example of such a problem. Of course we will never know that
>>it is if, in fact, it is.)
I assume you mean Goldbach's conjecture? And are referring to
Godel's theorem (regarding the unprovability of certain truths in any
sufficiently complex system)? I don't see any reason why chess would
be covered under this theorem, as it is a completely FINITE game! (Just
pretty damn /BIG/!) As is Go....
Mike Wilson
Bob Cunningham
>As we saw in the Kasparov-Anand match, scores posted on a web page are
>not authoritative. If you read the commentary at the same site, you'll
>see that the move 39...b4 was played by Kasparov before a draw was
>agreed. This is confirmed by Robert Byrne's column at the NY Times website.
The PGN file I downloaded from the IBM Web site has 39...b4.
---
BC | "Short words are best and the old words
LA | when short are best of all."
| -- Winston Churchill
Benjamin J. Tilly
atr...@yorku.ca (Allan Trojan) writes:
> In article <4g2qd9$o...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) says:
> >
> >In article <4fmv3v$d...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>
> >atr...@yorku.ca (Allan Trojan) writes:
>
> >
> >> Myself, I prefer the prediction "Whatever technological problem whose solution can be
> >> precisely defined eventually will be solved." (As well as many technological problems
> >> whose very definition we cannot even imagine.)
> >>
> >There are some problems which have been shown to be utterly impossible
> >to solve. The most infamous is the halting problem. (Can you write a
> >program to check whether another finite program with given finite data
> >will halt? No.)
>
> More infamous is determining who shaves the barber.
>
-->She<-- does not need to shave. (Doh!)
Actually mathematicians usually take Russell's paradox (the
mathematical source of this ill-posed problem) as evidence that the
language was not precisely defined. (Hence the enormous effort in
proper definitions in foundations of mathematics. And hence a
clarifying of thought and language to the point where Goedel's theorem
could be stated and proved.)
> >> Adelman has made the observation that there are many 'substances' which could be
> >> used to create computers. "Why not DNA?" he asked. Indeed. Why not even the sub
> >> atomic particles?
> >>
> >DNA computers, while "cool", are somewhat impractical.
>
> (Now. My understanding is that enormous progress has been
> made in just a few months. I suspect DNA computers will
> be in use much sooner than we expect.)
>
Progress has been made. But do you know how they work? They "try out"
all of the possibilities at the same time, and then by a process not
unlike the selection process in evolution, they converge to the best
solution in the collection. This is a neat idea, but it is limited in
principle by how much DNA you have.
For solving NP complete problems of an interesting size, the search
space is large enough that you would need to have an entire Solar
System full of DNA running the experiment. That is, of course, assuming
that you are only interested in a moderate problem and not one of the
larger scales that actually arise in finding the optimal design of
factories. (Hence the interest in finding "good" solutions which are
not perfect. Polynomial time algorithms exist for finding solutions
guarenteed to not be off from the best by more than some reasonable
factor. This can be very useful.)
> > Sub-atomic
> >particles have the unfortunate tendancy that they do not like to stay
> >around for long...
>
> No at this time we have no way to control them.
> There was a time, not so long ago, when we had no means
> to control electrons or electromagnetic fields.
>
The time when we could not control electrons or electromagnetic fields
was before the early 1800's. That is, *before* we knew anything about
electrons and electromagnetic fields.
Today we know a tremendous amount about sub-atomic particles. And, with
few exceptions (electrons are one), what we know is that they do not
last very long, and are basically impossible to control. (The worst
being neutrinos which usually go through something the size of the
Earth without noticing it.) Unless our understanding of physics on the
atomic scale utterly changes (which is not very likely) there is no way
to control many of these particles without manipulating forces with
total ranges of under one atom. And that scale, under concievable
physics, does not admit of anything much more interesting than a
variation or three on an atom.
Which is why the most interesting predictions in quantum computing are
quantum computers. But those are *very* delicate.
> >
> >> My prediction: Chess and the Travelling Salesman problem will be completely solved
> >> within the next 50 years. Within the next 100 years all present outstanding mathematical
> >> conjectures will be settled by computer programmes.
> >
> >FACT: It has been demonstrated that there is a physical upper limit on
> >what traditional computers can achieve.
>
> I am not, of course, thinking about traditional computers.
>
There is no other practical design on the horizon until quantum
computers come online. (Assuming that they will someday do so.)
>
> >As for chess? It has
> >enough quirky rules, and the problem is big enough, that it may well be
> >impossible to solve chess.
>
> The problem is only a wee bit bigger than the travelling salesman problem.
> How do you distinguish between a quirky rule and a non-quirky rule?
>
Actually the travelling salesman problem is bigger than chess.
Substantially bigger.
In this case (if you had indicated your editing like you SHOULD have)
the problem is that quantum computers (which are the only kind of
computer that offers any real possibility of analyzing the chess
game-tree perfectly) cannot be "programmed" in a direct fashion. And
their limitations are such that the more individual "rules" that you
want to put in (such as different moves for different pieces, special
moves like castling that pieces can do sometimes but not other times,
etc), then the less likely it is that a quantum computer cannot be
designed at all that will solve the problem.
Therefore the existence of a lot of specialized rules in chess makes it
less likely that a quantum comptuer can be built to solve it, which
would mean that there is no technology buildable in a reasonable
fashion within the imaginings of science and technology which can solve
chess.
> >
> >Oh, and about "all present outstanding mathematical conjectures", it is
> >rather likely that one or three of them are completely unsolvable, and
> >unverifiably so. (The twin prime problem has been put mentioned as a
> >potential example of such a problem. Of course we will never know that
> >it is if, in fact, it is.)
>
> My hunch is that no well-known conjecture is unsolvable in the Godelian
> sense. All non-solvable problems probably reduce to a variant of the
> problem of determining who shaves the barber. (Every man in town
> either shaves himself or is shaved by the barber.) Not a very interesting
> problem IMHO. Such problems probably have no mathematical content.
Not so. There are a great number of problems with considerable
mathematical interest which have been shown to be unsolvable in the
Goedelian sense by axiom systems such as PA, ZF, and ZFC.
In fact the halting problem (which is a problem of some practical
interest) is unsolvable in an absolute sense. And it ties up with a lot
of other problems of interest in math. (One random example... Does
polynomial __ have integer solutions? This is, in general, completely
unsolvable. And even a solvable problem such as Fermat's last theorem
can be difficult...)
However these are all problems that can be identified to be unsolvable.
In other words we can prove that it is unsolvable.
Given that there are so many unsolvable problems, and given that for
each unsolved problem there is the possibility of proving or disproving
that it is unsolvable, there are very good grounds for believing that
there is a problem which is unable to be shown or not shown to be
unsolvable. We cannot, for very good reasons produce such a problem.
The reason is as follows:
Obviously a solution constitutes a proof that a problem is solvable,
therefore said problem cannot have a solution. But then if we were to
identify the problem, we would know that it has no solution, and hence
we would have a proof that it is unsolvable. Therefore were we to be
able to positively identify it we would have a proof that it is
unsolvable. This means that we must be eternally unable to identify any
such problem.
This is rather disappointing. (Although, come to think of it, it may be
possible to identify a problem which cannot be so identified from
within a particular axiom system. I will have to check whether this has
been done.) However in conversation with logicians, they have told me
that they would expect that there are problems of mathematical interest
which are unsolvable, and are not identifiable as unsolvable problems.
Ben Tilly
(Graduate student in mathematics.)
Benjamin J. Tilly
wil...@matisse.its.rpi.edu (Michael L Wilson) writes:
> In article <4g6o92$8...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca>, Allan Trojan <atr...@yorku.ca> wrote:
> >In article <4g2qd9$o...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) says:
> >>
> >>In article <4fmv3v$d...@sunburst.ccs.yorku.ca> atr...@yorku.ca (Allan Trojan) writes:
> >
> >>Oh, and about "all present outstanding mathematical conjectures", it is
> >>rather likely that one or three of them are completely unsolvable, and
> >>unverifiably so. (The twin prime problem has been put mentioned as a
> >>potential example of such a problem. Of course we will never know that
> >>it is if, in fact, it is.)
>
> I assume you mean Goldbach's conjecture? And are referring to
No. Goldbach's conjecture is that every even number from 4 on is the
sum of 2 primes. The twin prime conjecture is that there are an
infinite number of primes p such that p+2 is also prime.
While neither is solved, there are a number of weaker versions of
Goldbach's conjecture that have been shown.
The twin prime problem has so far drawn blanks. (We can even say what
the density of them should be. Up to n there should be around
n/(log(n))^2 of them. The only result that I am aware of along this
line is that the sum of the reciprocals of the twin primes is finite.
However the expected density of them says that this sum should be
finite.)
> Godel's theorem (regarding the unprovability of certain truths in any
> sufficiently complex system)? I don't see any reason why chess would
> be covered under this theorem, as it is a completely FINITE game! (Just
> pretty damn /BIG/!) As is Go....
Neither chess or Go is covered by this theorem. I brought it up for the
reason that Allan Trojan had made ridiculous statements that
contradicted known facts involving this theorem. (Specifically he
claimed that "all present outstanding mathematical conjectures" would
be solvable by computer within 50-100 years.)
Ben Tilly
Aceboy123
Tim Smith
>> (Now. My understanding is that enormous progress has been
>> made in just a few months. I suspect DNA computers will
>> be in use much sooner than we expect.)
>>
>Progress has been made. But do you know how they work? They "try out"
>all of the possibilities at the same time, and then by a process not
>unlike the selection process in evolution, they converge to the best
>solution in the collection. This is a neat idea, but it is limited in
>principle by how much DNA you have.
It's also limited by how much energy you have, since each possibility
checked involves some physical change in the computing device. It doesn't
take much, when dealing with a problem that is O(something exponential),
to find oneself needing to build a Dyson sphere around the Sun to get
enough energy to run those DNA (or whatever) computers!
--Tim Smith
Allan Trojan
>
>what do you mean by "solve chess"?
Given any position, find the optimal move, ie, one that does not draw,
or, at least, does not lose.
Allan Trojan
>
>Neither chess or Go is covered by this theorem. I brought it up for the
>reason that Allan Trojan had made ridiculous statements that
>contradicted known facts involving this theorem. (Specifically he
>claimed that "all present outstanding mathematical conjectures" would
>be solvable by computer within 50-100 years.)
What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that it is a KNOWN fact
that all present outstanding mathematical conjectures will not be solved
by computers within 50-100 years. If so, please provide references
for this amazing known fact.
Allan Trojan.
>Ben Tilly
Benjamin J. Tilly
aceb...@aol.com (Aceboy123) writes:
> what do you mean by "solve chess"?
Work out the game tree in an efficient enough way to be able to, from
any position that can arise in a real game, feasibly find the
game-theoretically perfect move. By which I mean that if the position
is winning, it is the move that leads to the fastest win, if it is
drawn it leads to the longest draw, and if it is lost, is leads to the
longest loss. (The idea on the latter 2 being to give the opponent as
many chances to mess up as possible.)
The only practical way to do this at present is in endgame positions
with few pieces where we have an endgame database. I maintain that this
level of mastery of computer chess is unlikely to be seen in the next
century, while Allan Trojan claims that it will happen within 50.
Ben Tilly
Matthew Woodcraft
In article <4gelh1$e...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, aceb...@aol.com (Aceboy123) says:
>
>what do you mean by "solve chess"?
Given any position, find the optimal move, ie, one that does not draw,
or, at least, does not lose.
One could be truly ambitious and attempt to find a move which attains
both these ends.
-M-
Luis A. Dissett
> In article <4gdt4n$n...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu>, Benjamin...@dartmouth.edu (Benjamin J. Tilly) says:
> >
> >Neither chess or Go is covered by this theorem. I brought it up for the
> >reason that Allan Trojan had made ridiculous statements that
> >contradicted known facts involving this theorem. (Specifically he
> >claimed that "all present outstanding mathematical conjectures" would
> >be solvable by computer within 50-100 years.)
>
> What exactly are you saying? Are you saying that it is a KNOWN fact
> that all present outstanding mathematical conjectures will not be solved
> by computers within 50-100 years. If so, please provide references
> for this amazing known fact.
Gee ... it seems that common sense is definitely becoming the least
common of all senses. The only `amazing known fact' that I have seen
referred in this thread is the claim that `all present outstanding
mathematicall conjectures would [will?] be solvable by computer within
50-100 years'. If someone needs to provide references (and I am
certainly sure will not be able to), he/she is the one who claimed
this nonsense (yes, the onus is in on you, Allan).
As for `evidence' backing up a negative opinion, I will mention just a
few of the most important outstanding problems that *might* be
solvable by a computer, but are also possibly *not* solvable in this
way (not within the next 100 years, not EVER). The reason for this is
that many conjectures deal with the existence (or inexistence) of some
object which might exist (if at all) in an infinite search space. Each
of these conjectures can be settled by computers *only* if the
forementioned object does exist; otherwise, no computer power, not
even that that will be available in 100000 years, will help you ...
Some of the promised open problems:
1. P = NP? Does there exist a polynomial-time algorithm to solve the
satisfiability problem?
2. Goldbach's conjecture: Can every even number >= 4 be expressed as
the sum of two primes?
3. Does there exist a projective plane whose order is not a prime power?
If any of these turns out not to be solved by a computer (within 100
years), then Allan's claim is false. Want to bet?
Luis
P.S. Last, but certainly not least: what about the twin prime
conjecture? How can you prove, *using a computer*, that the
number of primes p for which p+2 is also prime, is *infinite*?
Again, using a computerm, how could you prove the contrary?