4 ms·
> Perhaps the best analogy is a chess expert paired with a computer can beat either the computer or the expert alone. This has stopped being true for a number
by 21 10y ago
> Perhaps the best analogy is a chess expert paired with a computer can beat either the computer or the expert alone.
This has stopped being true for a number of years. Computers play chess so much better now, that a human will actually impede it.
Think this way: could a 12 year old (the human) help a math graduate (the computer) on some problem? Or more likely he will just be a distraction?
More elaborations on this from gwern:
https://www.gwern.net/Notes#advanced-chess-obituary https://www.gwern.net/Notes#advanced-chess-obituary
- mathattack 10y agoFair enough, it's a weak analogy for chess. [0] The pairing is tighter in financial markets where the outcomes (prices) are not necessarily deterministic and the models are incomplete. [0] http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/what-are-humans-still-good-for-the-turning-point-in-freestyle-chess-may-be-approaching.html http://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/11/wha...
- anopows 10y agoKasparov seems to be of a different opinion[0], telling that machine + computer combination is still more powerful [0] https://youtu.be/fiyBJeNBIIA?t=1h27m36s https://youtu.be/fiyBJeNBIIA?t=1h27m36s
- philipov 10y agoA better analogy would be computer-assisted poker. The computer can keep track of the cards and provide probabilities, while the human provides the social computations (figuring out exploits by modelling the opponent's mental state). Computers have been very successful at pure optimization problems like chess, but still lag behind on games of assymetrical information. The stock market is more like poker than like chess, because it is the correct application of theory of mind (Can a computer bluff? Can a computer cheat?) that elevates it above a game of chance.