A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
lareviewofbooks.org
A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
1–10 of 21 posts
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#2Interesting but I believe that there are events where computers + humans beat just the computers. That shows that there must still be something else that the human adds to the situation that brute force hasn't been able to overcome yet.
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#3Interesting but I believe that there are events where computers + humans beat just the computers. That shows that there must still be something else that the human adds to the situation that brute force hasn't been able to overcome yet.
umm the brute force more or less learned from the humans, that's how it narrowed down the search space to a manageable level. it's not as if cracked the entire search space all on its own as the search space on its own is quite a bigger than something that even the most powerful computers can tackle.
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#4Kasparov's philosophy on AI in general is quite interesting. He's also a pretty good speaker with a sense of humor:
https://www.ted.com/talks/garry_kasparov_don_t_fear_intellig...
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#5Interesting but I believe that there are events where computers + humans beat just the computers. That shows that there must still be something else that the human adds to the situation that brute force hasn't been able to overcome yet.
umm the brute force more or less learned from the humans, that's how it narrowed down the search space to a manageable level. it's not as if cracked the entire search space all on its own as the search space on its own is quite a bigger than something that even the most powerful computers can tackle.
Yeah, I am having a hard time with the article's black and white distinction of "type A" brute-force chess solvers and "type B" humanlike intelligent engines.
To say that Deep Blue beat Kasparov with nothing but brute-force speed is to neglect the rather intelligent decisions it made, ascribing different weights to pieces in potential sacrifices, positions, development of pieces, control of the center, initiative, and all the other values that a human player uses to play chess.
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#6Earlier quoted context omitted.
umm the brute force more or less learned from the humans, that's how it narrowed down the search space to a manageable level. it's not as if cracked the entire search space all on its own as the search space on its own is quite a bigger than something that even the most powerful computers can tackle.
Yeah, I am having a hard time with the article's black and white distinction of "type A" brute-force chess solvers and "type B" humanlike intelligent engines. To say that Deep Blue beat Kasparov with nothing but brute-force speed is to neglect the rather intelligent decisions it made, ascribing different weights to pieces in potential sacrifices, positions, development of pieces, control of the center, initiative, an…
> To say that Deep Blue beat Kasparov with nothing but brute-force speed is to neglect the rather intelligent decisions it made, ascribing different weights to pieces in potential sacrifices, positions, development of pieces, control of the center, initiative, and all the other values that a human player uses to play chess.
But it's just an evaluation function anyway. A very complex one, but still nothing else. Chess engine doesn't have a notion of a plan (which is how a human approaches chess). All it does is mechanically keep on steering the game towards positions that are evaluted as best by the function.
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#7I'd be very interested to see how the techniques Google used in AlphaGo would fare if applied to chess.
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#8Interesting but I believe that there are events where computers + humans beat just the computers. That shows that there must still be something else that the human adds to the situation that brute force hasn't been able to overcome yet.
Chess AIs work by basically brute force with some simple heuristics. Humans still have superior pattern recognition and can play without seeing that many moves into the future at all.
But now the AIs are gaining superior pattern recognition as well. AlphaGo beat expert Go players by training a neural network to recognize good Go moves. Just like how a human would play. And then it combined that with the computers natural ability to search millions of moves. Humans can't add anything to this type of AI.
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#9I think brute force (coupled with powerful heuristic of course) is the optimal way for increasing strength of chess play in engines. It has long ago surpassed even the best humans anyway.
What is interesting to me - and really underexplored at the moment - are chess engines that are more human-like, but not for their strength of play. They might be a tad weaker, but much more useful for humans.
Such an engine would be able to annotate (human) games reconstructing most likely intentions of the players - which is what a good human annotator does.
It would therefore be able to teach humans by identifying their specific weaknesses on conceptual level; not merely highlight bad moves.
It could truly play like a human for entertainment or training - current chess engines suck at it, you can weaken them, but their mistakes won't have the same feel as blunders made by human opponents.
Such intelligent chess engines might be able to perfectly simulate playing style of human masters, living or deceased (based on recorded games of course) - so one day we might find a fairly probable answer to how exactly would a 1975 Fischer-Karpov match play out : )
Or generate beatiful, breathtaking games on purpose (there's already been some research devoted to evaluating beauty in chess, eg. https://en.chessbase.com/post/a-computer-program-to-identify...).
Re: A Brutal Intelligence: AI, Chess and the Human Mind
#10I'd be very interested to see how the techniques Google used in AlphaGo would fare if applied to chess.
Monte Carlo Tree Search isn't quite suitable for chess, because it's really only a substitute for games like Go which don't have suitable evaluation functions. If you have the ability to write a good evaluation function, as in chess, you don't need to do the "simulation" phase of MCTS. As a result, you basically just use the "tree" phase, but in conjunction with adversarial search heuristics.