4 ms·

Yes chess isn't really interesting out of an AI-perspective since a supercomputer can beat a human with brute force + heuristics. In Go you'd need something mor

by schtog 18y ago

Yes chess isn't really interesting out of an AI-perspective since a supercomputer can beat a human with brute force + heuristics. In Go you'd need something more like real AI.

geebee 18y ago
Chess could be interesting from an AI perspective if you limited the amount of brute force searching allowed. Computer chess and human chess are, by and large, completely different games. I'm not sure I agree with this article about patterns in chess. The real masters think strategically as well as tactically, and use the structure of the pawns and pieces, combined with intuition, to guide their moves. Ultimately, I suspect that go and chess fire up similar regions of the human brain.
- pon 18y ago
  They did MRI on Z.Polgar while she was playing. What they found out was chess thinking happens in a small region of the brain. The region is the same humans use when trying to recognize faces. Training modifies that machinery to recognize chess board positions too.
  - geebee 18y ago
    Huh, that surprises me. I would have expected a chess master to use more of her brain than I do (not that I know how my own brain would look all wired up, but I have trouble believing that I don't think much more narrowly about the game - kind of how people who actually understand math approach factoring a set of equations differently from people who need a set of rules they can follow closely).
    - eru 18y ago
      Perhaps they only looked at what parts of their brain experienced chess players used more?
prospero 18y ago
AI is search, brute-force or otherwise. There are a number of fascinating things that have come out of chess research on the way to grandmaster-level play, and even if the strongest chess players are all computers, that doesn't mean that it's suddenly become a worthless pursuit. The day that a perfect game of chess is played is the day that it gets boring, not before. With respect to go, the current approach is completely brute force; it plays thousands of games at random, and uses the percentage of wins by one side to evaluate the strength of the position. The challenge is how to use the information you've already encountered in your searches to reduce the search-space to something manageable.

by schtog 18y ago

Yes chess isn't really interesting out of an AI-perspective since a supercomputer can beat a human with brute force + heuristics. In Go you'd need something more like real AI.

geebee 18y ago

Chess could be interesting from an AI perspective if you limited the amount of brute force searching allowed. Computer chess and human chess are, by and large, completely different games. I'm not sure I agree with this article about patterns in chess. The real masters think strategically as well as tactically, and use the structure of the pawns and pieces, combined with intuition, to guide their moves. Ultimately, I suspect that go and chess fire up similar regions of the human brain.

pon 18y ago
They did MRI on Z.Polgar while she was playing. What they found out was chess thinking happens in a small region of the brain. The region is the same humans use when trying to recognize faces. Training modifies that machinery to recognize chess board positions too.
- geebee 18y ago
  Huh, that surprises me. I would have expected a chess master to use more of her brain than I do (not that I know how my own brain would look all wired up, but I have trouble believing that I don't think much more narrowly about the game - kind of how people who actually understand math approach factoring a set of equations differently from people who need a set of rules they can follow closely).
  - eru 18y ago
    Perhaps they only looked at what parts of their brain experienced chess players used more?

prospero 18y ago

AI is search, brute-force or otherwise. There are a number of fascinating things that have come out of chess research on the way to grandmaster-level play, and even if the strongest chess players are all computers, that doesn't mean that it's suddenly become a worthless pursuit. The day that a perfect game of chess is played is the day that it gets boring, not before. With respect to go, the current approach is completely brute force; it plays thousands of games at random, and uses the percentage of wins by one side to evaluate the strength of the position. The challenge is how to use the information you've already encountered in your searches to reduce the search-space to something manageable.