Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
businessinsider.com
Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
1–10 of 31 posts
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#2Computers may win at chess but they don't enjoy chess. It may very well be possible to automate most or all of the games that people play and having computer win the games. But people don't just play to win, they play for fun.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#3Remember that the computer chess AI is actually a snapshot of the intelligence of a human being. I don't see this distinction made enough. If you are struggling against a game, you are struggling against the one who made it.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#4This title should be changed to "Computers AREN'T beating humans at advanced chess". Here's the key excerpt from the blog post that the Business Insider article links to:
"Computer chess expert Kenneth W. Regan has compiled extensive data on this question, and you will see that a striking percentage of the best or most accurate chess games of all time have been played by man-machine pairs."
http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/FreestyleSt...
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#5Computers may win at chess but they don't enjoy chess. It may very well be possible to automate most or all of the games that people play and having computer win the games. But people don't just play to win, they play for fun.
I don't really see how that's relevant. We make computer AIs to play games because humans enjoy playing against smart opponents, and not all games lend themselves to a player vs player setup.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#6It's fascinating how far computers have come. I remember Kasparov being pissed off at Deep Blue because it wasn't a "computer move."
I do think there is a down side for games being solved with computers. Mostly because games become highly calculated and right moves become computer moves.
Take a look at Paul Morphy's games. They are elegant and exciting to watch and analyze. I just don't see the same play happening today with human or computer players. Murphy would lose today but his games were beautiful, maybe even "incorrect" by today's standards.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#7The article ends like this: "As Cowen puts it, 'what are humans still good for?'"
For the most part, programmers program better than programs. It's amazing to think about the possibilities as this statement becomes less true.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#8Remember that the computer chess AI is actually a snapshot of the intelligence of a human being. I don't see this distinction made enough. If you are struggling against a game, you are struggling against the one who made it.
I'm not sure how true that is, the algorithm for the chess engine could be relatively simple but easily outweigh the abilities of the creator.
Or the engine could make use of techniques such as genetic algorithms to improve itself. Meaning its abilities wouldn't necessarily relate to its creator.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#9> 'what are humans still good for?'
To take this from chess is rather silly.
Chess is a discrete game on 64 squares with a handful of possibilities in a given position, and a result of three different outcomes. It's right next to long division in the spectrum of problems that are amenable to computer analysis.
If anything, the surprise isn't that humans have been surpassed by computers in calculating chess positions, it's that humans are as good as we are at such a discrete and mechanical game of perfect information and logic.
Further the techniques to improve computer chess programs are brilliant, but they aren't techniques that lend themselves to domains of intelligence beyond chess.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#10It's fascinating how far computers have come. I remember Kasparov being pissed off at Deep Blue because it wasn't a "computer move." I do think there is a down side for games being solved with computers. Mostly because games become highly calculated and right moves become computer moves. Take a look at Paul Morphy's games. They are elegant and exciting to watch and analyze. I just don't see the same play happening to…
While it is true that Morphy's games were beautiful, one should note that his opponents usually were significantly weaker players than him. You could also read this as: Morphy was levels ahead of the other players at the time.
He could get away with 'risky' plays.