Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Parable of Alien Chess

lukesmith.xyz

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 176 posts

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#21

Post by marcus_holmes »

malf wrote: post #15

Any examples of what is supposed to work this way? It sounds like a rant against quantum measurement by someone who thinks everyone just forgot to consider hidden variable theories.

I saw it more as a critique of any area of science where the development of a statistical model of the behaviour of a system is treated as though it yielded any meaningful understanding of the system.

Quantum Mechanics, sure, but you could also apply this to Climate Science if you wanted to start a fight...

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#22

Post by keiferski »

jackhalford wrote: post #14

> In Against Method, Paul Feyerabend, in what an unreflective mind might misinterpret as a "troll," says that it is important for science that people have biases, financial interests, interfering religious and political doctrines and the like in science. Also dying, and new generations coming along is in the interest of science. quite ironically the development of eternal life would kill scientific progress, which mi…

Eternal life would also almost certainly kill any class mobility.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#23

Post by admax88q »

tikej wrote: post #8

This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake. Of course while it’s good to search for alternative models/theories/explanations, unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. EDIT: To clarify: by less…

> unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique.

Part of the authors premise is that a more correct theory could have less predictive power out thr gate and might not be pursued as a result.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#24

Post by subroutine »

The statement, "A machine that allows his alien eyes to see the first move." seems too information-rich for what the author then describes as the alternative model. Perhaps not the point of this thought experiment, but let's assume the aliens can only crudely see the first move: they know how many pieces there are on each side of the board, their color, but otherwise all the pieces look the same. They cannot see the surface of the board (they don't know it is checkered), but they can determine the exact center of each piece (so during the first move they can compute a precise coordinate of the piece that moves). Promptly after the first move, the image goes away. Also assume they trust the humans who've told them: "there are actually pieces on the board with functions". They have collected data on 1000s of matches.

What can the aliens know or deduce?

- The number of pieces

- The pieces are divided into 2 different colors (white and black)

- The pieces are split by color and placed at opposite (vertical) ends of the board.

- There is the same number of pieces in each color

- The pieces are arranged into 2 vertical rows and 8 horizontal columns

- Opening moves cluster at 2 different lengths, towards the opposite side of the board.

- The longer opening move length is typically ~2x the short opening move length.

- The opening move vector is always towards the opposite end of the board (not horizontal)

- The opening move is always white

- White wins slightly more often

- They are given the duration and outcome of each game (win, loss, or tie)

- ? When games end quickly, first-move advantage shrinks

- ? Sometimes a series of games end more quicker than usual (they observe a blitz tourney)

- ? Win P() is slightly different for each of the 8 (x2) possible opening moves

- ? Everything here: https://old.chesstempo.com/images/en/openingExp.png

What else?

Also, a note regarding the statement in the article that the alternative model "is less predictive over iterated games than the coin flip model". I don't think this is technically possible. If the model was selecting the winner at a statistically worse rate than 50% chance, you could just flip the sign of the prediction, and do that much better than chance.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#27

Post by radioactivist »

vincnetas wrote: post #17
tikej wrote: post #8

This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake. Of course while it’s good to search for alternative models/theories/explanations, unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. EDIT: To clarify: by less…

"Physicists are “stuck” with existing theories not because they like them, but because they work so well it’s hard to invent something that even works equally well" Yes, but hundred years ago we were "stuck" with another worldview that was explaining everything fine, and i assume ther was a big resistance from estabilishment to addopt new ideas. But then old scientist died, and resistance got weaker. So we might look…

One hundred years ago there were many things that did not have any real explanation -- classical physics was not "stuck" and was not "explaining everything fine". Our understanding of something as common as metals and insulators depends heavily on quantum mechanics. That's not even counting things like spectral lines, the stability of atoms, etc, etc that were unexplained in 19th century physics, and explicitly known at the time to be at odds with classical physics.

While worldviews can be overturned and paradigms can be shifted, it is (significantly) harder than it was before. We simply know more now, and have a better understanding of our limits. So whatever new framework that has to supercede our current framework has more ground to cover than it did even in the recent past. This is exacerbated by the fact that in physics in that most everything outside the early universe and black holes (which aren't easily accessible experimentally) seems to conform to our current framework -- there is both more to fit in and less data to work with.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#28

Post by thiago_fm »

I find the article great. His only mistake is to think that chess is a balanced game. White has clearly an advantage and in a long amount of random games, like he did propose, see a 50% winrate for black.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#29

Post by ALittleLight »

vecter wrote: post #7
lmm wrote: post #2

> After extensive experimentation, they realize this: 50% of the time, the white player wins and 50% of the time, the black player wins (we'll ignore draws and any first-move advantage for the example). But this is empirically false. It fails to explain that, for example, some players consistently beat other players, or at least have a much higher than 50% winrate. If chess really did consistently just have a 50% out…

There are so many unreasonable assumptions baked into this parable that make it difficult to take seriously. Any amount of meaningful investigation by the aliens would yield more insights into the fact that the game is in fact not a random coin flip. Even recognizing that white has a slightly higher win rate [0] would demonstrate some asymmetry that suggests the existence of a deeper structure or symmetry-breaking. […

The article is not a treatise on how aliens might investigate chess though. That's just a symbolic example to illustrate the idea that you could have a simple model with good predictive power that is somehow less correct than a complicated model with worse predictive power.

Re: Parable of Alien Chess

#30

Post by tikej »

admax88q wrote: post #23
tikej wrote: post #8

This text mainly shows that author either misunderstands chess, probability and science, likely at the same time, or just wants to critique for critique’s sake. Of course while it’s good to search for alternative models/theories/explanations, unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. EDIT: To clarify: by less…

> unless you can provide something with better with more predictive power than the existing/widely accepted ones, it’s a good idea to hold the critique. Part of the authors premise is that a more correct theory could have less predictive power out thr gate and might not be pursued as a result.

Why wouldn’t it be pursued? Is string theory not pursued by “mainstream science” because (at least for now) it has less predictive power than standard model?
Post reply on HN