4 ms·

Another comparison would be how would the Formula 1 car do in terms of sourcing its own energy to keep going. Humans - in our primitive state were adapted for '

by mbubb 11y ago

Another comparison would be how would the Formula 1 car do in terms of sourcing its own energy to keep going. Humans - in our primitive state were adapted for 'persistence hunting' - we ran in packs and drove animals into hyperthermia. The Formula 1 car would do quite well for the first few hundred miles. But you would eventually get an Aesopian 'tortoise and hare' effect. In the real world the OP's point is a good one. Lee SeDol could outlast AlphaGo by making it use too much in the way of resources (energy, human work, maintenance) untill he could get close enough to fell the beast with a stone arrow or hardened wood spear... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endurance_running_hypothesis

mikeash 11y ago
F1 cars are good at causing humans to tend to their needs, though! Much better than most humans. The average F1 car gets far more resources than, for example, I do. Here's a fun idea. Chess is thoroughly lost to the computers at this point, but what if we add in an element that would give the humans an advantage? There's a real actual sport called Chess boxing. The competitors spend three minutes playing chess, then three minutes pounding the crap out of each other, alternating back and forth. Let's see how well a modern computer can do at this game!
- mbubb 11y ago
  Heh, I found out about this recently. I have a coworker who is simultaneously quite good at chess and Brasilian JiuJitsu. I suggested a combination of the two and he told me about Chess boxing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
- dagw 11y ago
  I'd probably bet on this: https://www.robots.com/images/R-2000ia.JPG https://www.robots.com/images/R-2000ia.JPG vs. a human, especially since all it has to do is not get knocked out.
  - mikeash 11y ago
    I'm sure that without substantial modification that would violate some of the rules of the game. Chess boxing also has weight classes, so while it might be able to win a heavyweight match, other weight classes would be much more interesting. To keep things fair, I think we should require the computer to view and manipulate the physical chess board and pieces. None of this nonsense of feeding it moves through a keyboard and taking instructions off a screen.
    - chillacy 11y ago
      Why create a bunch of rules to keep things fair? Man vs machine is never going to be fair once we have the machine to do it. Before deep blue or alphaGo, yea it'll be a fun event. Once the machine exists, we check off another box in the list of things that machines can now do, and we move on with our lives. Though on the topic of the movement aspect of boxing, machines are still pretty bad at keeping their balance and moving around the world, even without limitations.
      - mikeash 11y ago
        Don't create new rules, just keep existing ones. The rules I found on worldchessboxing.com (every time I see the phrase "chess boxing" it makes me laugh) say that the chess clock must be pressed with the same hand that moves the piece, so apparently the computer is going to need hands (well, one hand). They also say that it's the player's responsibility to press their own clock between moves, so that rules out any outside help for moving pieces. I note that the players are allowed to bring water to the chess table. I'm not sure if there's a rule against pouring it on your opponent. The computer might need to take this into account.
        chillacy 11y ago
        I think a <200lb bipedal 2-arm robot which could box would be a marvel to see, but if there aren't any rules which say how many arms and legs the combatant has to have, the robot is gonna have wheels, most of its mass in the lower body so as to make it un-topplable, be made of some lightweight metal, and have an arm that plays chess and a boxing glove on an actuator that can break concrete. And on the point of existing rules, the existing rules aren't enough for this type of competition. First of all the weight class: are robots men or women? It says age 17+, how does that affect the robot? There's no rule against pouring water on the robot, but there also isn't a rule against releasing nerve gas. My robot is a pourous metal box with a canister of gas which renders everyone unconscious, do I win by K/O? Also, they already have battle robots, and they look nothing like conventional humans (one common design is a flat panel that slides under the opponent and jettisons them) As for reaction speed of man (100+ms vs machine), I'll just link this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nxjjztQKtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nxjjztQKtY

by mbubb 11y ago

mikeash 11y ago

F1 cars are good at causing humans to tend to their needs, though! Much better than most humans. The average F1 car gets far more resources than, for example, I do. Here's a fun idea. Chess is thoroughly lost to the computers at this point, but what if we add in an element that would give the humans an advantage? There's a real actual sport called Chess boxing. The competitors spend three minutes playing chess, then three minutes pounding the crap out of each other, alternating back and forth. Let's see how well a modern computer can do at this game!

mbubb 11y ago
Heh, I found out about this recently. I have a coworker who is simultaneously quite good at chess and Brasilian JiuJitsu. I suggested a combination of the two and he told me about Chess boxing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chess_boxing
dagw 11y ago
I'd probably bet on this: https://www.robots.com/images/R-2000ia.JPG https://www.robots.com/images/R-2000ia.JPG vs. a human, especially since all it has to do is not get knocked out.
- mikeash 11y ago
  I'm sure that without substantial modification that would violate some of the rules of the game. Chess boxing also has weight classes, so while it might be able to win a heavyweight match, other weight classes would be much more interesting. To keep things fair, I think we should require the computer to view and manipulate the physical chess board and pieces. None of this nonsense of feeding it moves through a keyboard and taking instructions off a screen.
  - chillacy 11y ago
    Why create a bunch of rules to keep things fair? Man vs machine is never going to be fair once we have the machine to do it. Before deep blue or alphaGo, yea it'll be a fun event. Once the machine exists, we check off another box in the list of things that machines can now do, and we move on with our lives. Though on the topic of the movement aspect of boxing, machines are still pretty bad at keeping their balance and moving around the world, even without limitations.
    - mikeash 11y ago
      Don't create new rules, just keep existing ones. The rules I found on worldchessboxing.com (every time I see the phrase "chess boxing" it makes me laugh) say that the chess clock must be pressed with the same hand that moves the piece, so apparently the computer is going to need hands (well, one hand). They also say that it's the player's responsibility to press their own clock between moves, so that rules out any outside help for moving pieces. I note that the players are allowed to bring water to the chess table. I'm not sure if there's a rule against pouring it on your opponent. The computer might need to take this into account.
      - chillacy 11y ago
        I think a <200lb bipedal 2-arm robot which could box would be a marvel to see, but if there aren't any rules which say how many arms and legs the combatant has to have, the robot is gonna have wheels, most of its mass in the lower body so as to make it un-topplable, be made of some lightweight metal, and have an arm that plays chess and a boxing glove on an actuator that can break concrete. And on the point of existing rules, the existing rules aren't enough for this type of competition. First of all the weight class: are robots men or women? It says age 17+, how does that affect the robot? There's no rule against pouring water on the robot, but there also isn't a rule against releasing nerve gas. My robot is a pourous metal box with a canister of gas which renders everyone unconscious, do I win by K/O? Also, they already have battle robots, and they look nothing like conventional humans (one common design is a flat panel that slides under the opponent and jettisons them) As for reaction speed of man (100+ms vs machine), I'll just link this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nxjjztQKtY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3nxjjztQKtY