I guessed this was Tyler Cowen from the headline. He goes on and on about chess in his book, Average is Over.
Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
11–20 of 31 posts
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#12Despite growth of Monte Carlo Based programs - Computers play Go(Baduk) only at roughly the level of a very good amateur player.
I am very much looking forward to the advances in Go that will come in the next 25 years when computers start to challenge professional players in my preferred game. Until then, there is another useless pure information skill that humans are better than computers at.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#13Remember 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.
Suppose you have a child who has been raised isolated from the world and only taught by a single person - is it fair to say the child is actually a snapshot of another person's intelligence?
The program has been taught and empowered to make decisions the person can't make. It's no more a snapshot of the person than a child is a snapshot of its parents.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#14> 'what are humans still good for?'
Enjoying playing chess.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#15The 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.
Programmers are not better than programs if the program it is competing against is a black-scholes estmator, compiler, interpreter, or assembler, and time is an input to the cost function.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#16The 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.
Programmers are not better than programs if the program it is competing against is a black-scholes estmator, compiler, interpreter, or assembler, and time is an input to the cost function.
Compiler, interpreter or an assembler is basically a translator. It doesn't have to think, it is simple computation following a set of rules, of course a computer would win in that case.
But can a computer write code from scratch as good as a human? No(t yet).
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#17Remember 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.
Would you also say the speed of a car is a snapshot of the running ability of the human beings that built it?
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#18I'm still waiting for the day when a computer defeats a 9-dan professional Go player in an even game with the same time limits used in a normal professional games.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#19This 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…
> This title should be changed to "Computers AREN'T beating humans at advanced chess"
How would anyone know? The OP is just linking to the same 2012 thread filled with speculation which you see pop up every so often. There's nothing hard in it establishing that centaurs are still useful/no longer useful, and in any case, 3 years is a long time.
> http://www.cse.buffalo.edu/~regan/chess/fidelity/FreestyleSt....
Which will be a lagging indicator (if computer chess AIs had just squeaked over the threshold where a grandmaster's contribution declined to the level of noise, how many years would it take for unaided chess programs to accumulate 'a striking percentage') and in any case, has just a few games post-2010 and none at all post-2013.
Re: Computers Beating Humans at Advanced Chess
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
Programmers are not better than programs if the program it is competing against is a black-scholes estmator, compiler, interpreter, or assembler, and time is an input to the cost function.
Compiler, interpreter or an assembler is basically a translator. It doesn't have to think, it is simple computation following a set of rules, of course a computer would win in that case. But can a computer write code from scratch as good as a human? No(t yet).
Human minds are nothing more than computers running on unoptimized substrates. It's only a short matter of time on an evolutionary scale before machines surpass.