4 ms·

For point #2, the current state of AI allows only for "because you're more likely to win with this move." Today's AI can't reason like a human mind does, it jus

For point #2, the current state of AI allows only for "because you're more likely to win with this move." Today's AI can't reason like a human mind does, it just simulates thousands of scenarios and analyzes which are more likely to be successful, with a very primitive understanding as to why.

taurath 11y ago
Wouldn't it be possible to compare the "top" move with the "runner up" move, compare outcome percentages, and declare whether there is a small or large deviation? Or comparing the "top" move with any other possible move? Or is that too much calculation?
- umanwizard 11y ago
  Well, you can make chess engines give you a numeric evaluation for several possible moves. These are typically tuned so that the value of a pawn is around 1 point. A grandmaster 1 or 2 points ahead can routinely convert to a won game, assuming he doesn't blunder. So if the best move has an evaluation of +0.05 and the second best has -0.02 , the difference is probably a very subtle positional improvement (and the first move may not in fact be better; chess programs aren't perfect). If the best is +3.12 and the second is -0.02, and you can't see why, there's a concrete material tactic you're missing (or, less likely, a major, obvious positional devastation). But, it can't tell you what you're missing, just the magnitude of the difference.
- jibalt 11y ago
  Compare all you want ... that doesn't tell you why the choice was made, because it was made by evaluating and comparing many millions of positions.
sfsylvester 11y ago
> "because you're more likely to win with this move" Is that not exactly how a human decides which move to play?
- DonaldFisk 11y ago
  Good go players have a lot of explicit knowledge, and give names to the concepts they have. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?ReferenceSection http://senseis.xmp.net/?ReferenceSection When playing, they have a strategy, which they could explain to other go players. They don't just recognize patterns or do brute-force look-ahead. The same is true for good chess players.
- mikeash 11y ago
  There's typically an extra layer (or more) with humans. "Because this puts your Bishop in wasabi which makes it harder for your opponent to extract his Kinglet, making it more likely to win."
  - gohrt 11y ago
    Deep nets have layers too. We need to assign names to the nodes of the layers. That's the challenge of interpretability in neural nets.
    - jibalt 11y ago
      Explanations for choices have nothing to do with nodes or layers.
- jibalt 11y ago
  No, it isn't, exactly or inexactly.
cname 11y ago
> ...with a very primitive understanding as to why. Or, more likely, with no understanding at all.
unclebucknasty 11y ago
Seems like a pretty thin line between these conceptions of "understanding". If the AI is programmed to "understand" the rules and ojectives of the game, and it uses that information to assess the best moves for various scenarios, then how does that materially differ from human understanding?
- jibalt 11y ago
  It's strange that almost no one commenting on this has the faintest idea how chess programs work. Chess programs score moves by scoring and comparing, recursively, many millions of positions.
  - unclebucknasty 11y ago
    Actually, I wrote one as a senior project years ago. It worked exactly that way, with the exception that the number of positions was less, owed to the available computing power. Concept was the same as you describe. No rocket science. I purposely read nothing beforehand, because I wanted to devise an approach and this seemed the most obvious. Of course, nowadays that is not the only technique in use. In any case, I'm not sure why you think it impossible to add any additional analysis to the program as it repeatedly scores millions of positions.

taurath 11y ago

Wouldn't it be possible to compare the "top" move with the "runner up" move, compare outcome percentages, and declare whether there is a small or large deviation? Or comparing the "top" move with any other possible move? Or is that too much calculation?

umanwizard 11y ago
Well, you can make chess engines give you a numeric evaluation for several possible moves. These are typically tuned so that the value of a pawn is around 1 point. A grandmaster 1 or 2 points ahead can routinely convert to a won game, assuming he doesn't blunder. So if the best move has an evaluation of +0.05 and the second best has -0.02 , the difference is probably a very subtle positional improvement (and the first move may not in fact be better; chess programs aren't perfect). If the best is +3.12 and the second is -0.02, and you can't see why, there's a concrete material tactic you're missing (or, less likely, a major, obvious positional devastation). But, it can't tell you what you're missing, just the magnitude of the difference.
jibalt 11y ago
Compare all you want ... that doesn't tell you why the choice was made, because it was made by evaluating and comparing many millions of positions.

sfsylvester 11y ago

> "because you're more likely to win with this move" Is that not exactly how a human decides which move to play?

DonaldFisk 11y ago
Good go players have a lot of explicit knowledge, and give names to the concepts they have. See http://senseis.xmp.net/?ReferenceSection http://senseis.xmp.net/?ReferenceSection When playing, they have a strategy, which they could explain to other go players. They don't just recognize patterns or do brute-force look-ahead. The same is true for good chess players.
mikeash 11y ago
There's typically an extra layer (or more) with humans. "Because this puts your Bishop in wasabi which makes it harder for your opponent to extract his Kinglet, making it more likely to win."
- gohrt 11y ago
  Deep nets have layers too. We need to assign names to the nodes of the layers. That's the challenge of interpretability in neural nets.
  - jibalt 11y ago
    Explanations for choices have nothing to do with nodes or layers.
jibalt 11y ago
No, it isn't, exactly or inexactly.

cname 11y ago

> ...with a very primitive understanding as to why. Or, more likely, with no understanding at all.

unclebucknasty 11y ago

Seems like a pretty thin line between these conceptions of "understanding". If the AI is programmed to "understand" the rules and ojectives of the game, and it uses that information to assess the best moves for various scenarios, then how does that materially differ from human understanding?

jibalt 11y ago
It's strange that almost no one commenting on this has the faintest idea how chess programs work. Chess programs score moves by scoring and comparing, recursively, many millions of positions.
- unclebucknasty 11y ago
  Actually, I wrote one as a senior project years ago. It worked exactly that way, with the exception that the number of positions was less, owed to the available computing power. Concept was the same as you describe. No rocket science. I purposely read nothing beforehand, because I wanted to devise an approach and this seemed the most obvious. Of course, nowadays that is not the only technique in use. In any case, I'm not sure why you think it impossible to add any additional analysis to the program as it repeatedly scores millions of positions.