5 ms·

Do you think chess players will migrate to Go because they don't like playing a game that they can't win against a computer? I'm nowhere near good enough to pr

by geebee 15y ago

Do you think chess players will migrate to Go because they don't like playing a game that they can't win against a computer? I'm nowhere near good enough to pretend to understand the motivations of a chess master, but this does kind of make sense to me. Somehow, it kills the vibe to know that computers will always win. Funny, humans still enjoy sports even though a human sprinter will never run as fast as a motorcycle. Maybe it's because we've always been physically less capable than animals, maybe it hurts more to be bested intellectually. Horses have always run faster than us, so we're primed to see the motorcycle as a tool rather than a challenge. In sports, maybe we're better at celebrating human achievement without comparing it to something else. Like most people, I don't actually think humans really were bested by computers in chess. There is a huge difference, of course - the computers are winning by following a completely different "thought" process than a human. It's an astoundingly impressive accomplishment to build a program that can beat chess masters, but because the way a human plays is so different, I think that I understand what the calculator analogy is getting at. In some ways, the "victory" shows the severe limitations of computers - a human chess grandmaster, capable of holding and evaluating maybe a dozen positions, is capable of playing evenly with a computer that evaluates hundreds of millions of positions a second. And in Go, that dozen or so positions combined with intuition, strategy, and other mental processes we consider almost subjective is so effective that a billions of positions a second computer can't even come close to winning. If go eventually falls because computers are now capable of evaluating trillions of moves per second, but the approach is still essentially number crunching, well that's an impressive engineering feat, but "human intelligence" won't be any more defeated than it was the first time, with chess. Now, if a computer can beat a human by evaluating fewer moves, ok, maybe then we've been bested.

jonnathanson 15y ago
If I'm following the line of reasoning correctly, it's that chess players will migrate to a game like Go because it can't be reduced as easily to positional values and min/maxing of said values. While it's true that chess has an absurd amount of possible moves, combinations, and games, computers are showing us that chess strategy and theory are essentially meaningless in the face of brute calculational ability. From a poetic point of view, you could argue that computers are sucking the mysticism and romance out of the game. From a practical point of view, you could argue that computers are steadily making the game pointless for humans. Either way, it's a less exciting game now that it's been reduced. Kasparov seems to be an optimist, for what it's worth, and in several of his disquisitions on this topic, he argues that a computer program will never "solve" chess the way a program solved checkers a few years ago. There are too many numbers to crunch. Furthermore, there are too many weaknesses in AI's ability to form strategies or think creatively. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning assumes that creativity is necessary for success in chess. It might be in a human-vs-human game, but in absolute terms, evidently it's not.
Jun8 15y ago
Go has an intrinsic beauty that some value more than chess. In Shibumi (great book btw), young Nicholai Hel declares (http://books.google.com/books?id=Li4EzEdaX1oC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=shibumi+go+is+to+chess&source=bl&ots=MdMQdYTzJN&sig=Wq8k7-Juw8uPigrmZSKcxrtT4kE&hl=en&ei=Qj7UTY6NMMPvsgb4lojlAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Li4EzEdaX1oC&pg=PA73&#3...): "What Go is to philosophers and warriors, chess is to accountants and merchants" If so, why is it not as popular as chess (outside Asia)? This could be examined at length but the fact that chess was used as one of the weapons of Cold War and its long history (Go has become popular in the West only in late 20th century) all should be considered. Yet, there might be some truth to Nicholai's (aka Trevanian, aka Whitaker) observation. The antagonistic nature of chess is much easier to grasp than the cold, crystalline-like beauty of Go's patterns. As to your comment " I don't actually think humans really were bested by computers in chess", which is shared by others on this thread: The observations that computers play "ugly chess", the "thought" process is different, etc. stem from an romantic idealization of how the grandmasters are raised and train nowadays. I would very much suggest that you read the NYer article I linked (an another commentor summarized). The basic idea there is not that computers have learned to play an ugly version of brute force chess but humans (with the aid of their computerized tools) learned how to mechanically optimize their play, getting closer to computers.
- geebee 15y ago
  "The antagonistic nature of chess is much easier to grasp than the cold, crystalline-like beauty of Go's patterns." Sure, but are the long term structural patterns in Chess easier to grasp? I'm at a disadvantage here because I'm honestly not good enough at either game to really know. I read that Bobby Fischer once snapped to a journalist who congratulated him on a well played chess match: "how would you know?" I don't know. My casual dabbling in chess and go gives me as much in common with Go or Chess masters as my BA in Math gives me with Euler. What I do isn't a weaker version of what they do, it isn't related at all. Now, my 5 year old loves the antagonistic nature of chess, it's about taking the other guy's pieces. Kabam, got you! But c'mon, even I know that's not meaningful chess. And these comparisons of Kasparov's genius to "accountants and merchants?" Kind or reminds me of that scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where Nash loses a go game and claims "the game is flawed." It's not flawed, you just don't get it.
gnosis 15y ago
"Do you think chess players will migrate to Go because they don't like playing a game that they can't win against a computer?" I don't think most chess players will migrate to Go. It's the serious chess players which will probably migrate, and they'll probably migrate to a variant of chess rather than to Go. Go is just too different for most players who are fascinated with chess to switch to (though they might appreciate both). Many chess variants, on the other hand, tend to be similar in many ways to regular chess. So if you enjoy playing regular chess, you'll likely enjoy playing a variant just as much (maybe even more). In fact, "regular chess" is itself actually a chess variant, as the rules of chess have changed over the centuries. What we call "chess" today differs in some ways from what was known as "chess" even just a couple of hundred years ago. And the further back in time you go, the more differences there are. Chess is not a game whose rules are set in stone for all time. It changes and develops with the demands and interests of the ages. And it seems likely that the demands of our age will change it once again. "I'm nowhere near good enough to pretend to understand the motivations of a chess master, but this does kind of make sense to me. Somehow, it kills the vibe to know that computers will always win." It's not so much that humans somehow resent the dominance of the machines in chess, but that computers (and the study of chess in general) have radically transformed the game in a direction that many players are unhappy with. For instance, it used to be that if a tournament game lasted too long, it would be adjourned (ie. the players would take a break for a while) until the game could be resumed. In the meantime they could think over the adjourned position and use what they thought up when the game resumed. Because of computers, that's no longer done. The problem is that either player could now secretly use a computer to analyze the adjourned position for him, and from that point on the result of the game becomes more of a matter of who has the strongest chess computer rather than of which human is the strongest chess player. Another problem that computers (and the study of chess) have brought about is that the memorization of previously analyzed moves has become a major part of the game (especially at the more competitive levels). This was true even in Fischer's day, before chess computers were useful, but is much more true today. The consequence of this is that the person who's memorized the most chess moves can have a great advantage (though this is a bit of an oversimplification, as many other factors enter in to play as well). Many people are really not very fond of playing against what amounts to a database of chess moves rather than against another human being. That's why chess variants like Fischer Random Chess are appealing: to a very large extent, they take away the usefulness of memorizing chess moves. Of course, one of the advantages that computers have over humans is that they have a "perfect memory" (though not a limitless one). So when playing a chess variant like Fischer Random Chess, the playing field is leveled against computers as well. Another problem that computers have brought to chess is the possibility of cheating using computers. Accusations of cheating with computers have plagued even the highest levels of chess, and certain types of chess ("postal chess" and internet chess in particular, where you can't see who you're really playing against) are very vulnerable to such cheating. Playing a variant of chess that's harder for computers to win would solve this problem as well. "Funny, humans still enjoy sports even though a human sprinter will never run as fast as a motorcycle." Well, the thing is that a motorcycle doesn't actually run. It'll be interesting to see what happens to sports like sprinting and boxing when humanoid robots get advanced enough to be able to actually compete in these sports. I don't think they'll be quite as catastrophically affected as chess has been, since study with the robots isn't likely to give nearly as much of an advantage to players in those sports as studying with chess computers has given to chess players. But it'll still be interesting to see how they react once robots can actually beat them at their game.
ikono 15y ago
Kasparov wrote another article about this topic. It turns out that a computer paired with a human is far stronger than the computer alone. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-che...
Fuzzwah 15y ago
It is very obvious if an entrant in a running race is riding a motocycle. Its less obvious if someone is using a computer to cheat at chess.

by geebee 15y ago

jonnathanson 15y ago

If I'm following the line of reasoning correctly, it's that chess players will migrate to a game like Go because it can't be reduced as easily to positional values and min/maxing of said values. While it's true that chess has an absurd amount of possible moves, combinations, and games, computers are showing us that chess strategy and theory are essentially meaningless in the face of brute calculational ability. From a poetic point of view, you could argue that computers are sucking the mysticism and romance out of the game. From a practical point of view, you could argue that computers are steadily making the game pointless for humans. Either way, it's a less exciting game now that it's been reduced. Kasparov seems to be an optimist, for what it's worth, and in several of his disquisitions on this topic, he argues that a computer program will never "solve" chess the way a program solved checkers a few years ago. There are too many numbers to crunch. Furthermore, there are too many weaknesses in AI's ability to form strategies or think creatively. Unfortunately, this line of reasoning assumes that creativity is necessary for success in chess. It might be in a human-vs-human game, but in absolute terms, evidently it's not.

Jun8 15y ago

Go has an intrinsic beauty that some value more than chess. In Shibumi (great book btw), young Nicholai Hel declares (http://books.google.com/books?id=Li4EzEdaX1oC&pg=PA73&lpg=PA73&dq=shibumi+go+is+to+chess&source=bl&ots=MdMQdYTzJN&sig=Wq8k7-Juw8uPigrmZSKcxrtT4kE&hl=en&ei=Qj7UTY6NMMPvsgb4lojlAg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Li4EzEdaX1oC&pg=PA73&#3...): "What Go is to philosophers and warriors, chess is to accountants and merchants" If so, why is it not as popular as chess (outside Asia)? This could be examined at length but the fact that chess was used as one of the weapons of Cold War and its long history (Go has become popular in the West only in late 20th century) all should be considered. Yet, there might be some truth to Nicholai's (aka Trevanian, aka Whitaker) observation. The antagonistic nature of chess is much easier to grasp than the cold, crystalline-like beauty of Go's patterns. As to your comment " I don't actually think humans really were bested by computers in chess", which is shared by others on this thread: The observations that computers play "ugly chess", the "thought" process is different, etc. stem from an romantic idealization of how the grandmasters are raised and train nowadays. I would very much suggest that you read the NYer article I linked (an another commentor summarized). The basic idea there is not that computers have learned to play an ugly version of brute force chess but humans (with the aid of their computerized tools) learned how to mechanically optimize their play, getting closer to computers.

geebee 15y ago
"The antagonistic nature of chess is much easier to grasp than the cold, crystalline-like beauty of Go's patterns." Sure, but are the long term structural patterns in Chess easier to grasp? I'm at a disadvantage here because I'm honestly not good enough at either game to really know. I read that Bobby Fischer once snapped to a journalist who congratulated him on a well played chess match: "how would you know?" I don't know. My casual dabbling in chess and go gives me as much in common with Go or Chess masters as my BA in Math gives me with Euler. What I do isn't a weaker version of what they do, it isn't related at all. Now, my 5 year old loves the antagonistic nature of chess, it's about taking the other guy's pieces. Kabam, got you! But c'mon, even I know that's not meaningful chess. And these comparisons of Kasparov's genius to "accountants and merchants?" Kind or reminds me of that scene in "A Beautiful Mind" where Nash loses a go game and claims "the game is flawed." It's not flawed, you just don't get it.

gnosis 15y ago

"Do you think chess players will migrate to Go because they don't like playing a game that they can't win against a computer?" I don't think most chess players will migrate to Go. It's the serious chess players which will probably migrate, and they'll probably migrate to a variant of chess rather than to Go. Go is just too different for most players who are fascinated with chess to switch to (though they might appreciate both). Many chess variants, on the other hand, tend to be similar in many ways to regular chess. So if you enjoy playing regular chess, you'll likely enjoy playing a variant just as much (maybe even more). In fact, "regular chess" is itself actually a chess variant, as the rules of chess have changed over the centuries. What we call "chess" today differs in some ways from what was known as "chess" even just a couple of hundred years ago. And the further back in time you go, the more differences there are. Chess is not a game whose rules are set in stone for all time. It changes and develops with the demands and interests of the ages. And it seems likely that the demands of our age will change it once again. "I'm nowhere near good enough to pretend to understand the motivations of a chess master, but this does kind of make sense to me. Somehow, it kills the vibe to know that computers will always win." It's not so much that humans somehow resent the dominance of the machines in chess, but that computers (and the study of chess in general) have radically transformed the game in a direction that many players are unhappy with. For instance, it used to be that if a tournament game lasted too long, it would be adjourned (ie. the players would take a break for a while) until the game could be resumed. In the meantime they could think over the adjourned position and use what they thought up when the game resumed. Because of computers, that's no longer done. The problem is that either player could now secretly use a computer to analyze the adjourned position for him, and from that point on the result of the game becomes more of a matter of who has the strongest chess computer rather than of which human is the strongest chess player. Another problem that computers (and the study of chess) have brought about is that the memorization of previously analyzed moves has become a major part of the game (especially at the more competitive levels). This was true even in Fischer's day, before chess computers were useful, but is much more true today. The consequence of this is that the person who's memorized the most chess moves can have a great advantage (though this is a bit of an oversimplification, as many other factors enter in to play as well). Many people are really not very fond of playing against what amounts to a database of chess moves rather than against another human being. That's why chess variants like Fischer Random Chess are appealing: to a very large extent, they take away the usefulness of memorizing chess moves. Of course, one of the advantages that computers have over humans is that they have a "perfect memory" (though not a limitless one). So when playing a chess variant like Fischer Random Chess, the playing field is leveled against computers as well. Another problem that computers have brought to chess is the possibility of cheating using computers. Accusations of cheating with computers have plagued even the highest levels of chess, and certain types of chess ("postal chess" and internet chess in particular, where you can't see who you're really playing against) are very vulnerable to such cheating. Playing a variant of chess that's harder for computers to win would solve this problem as well. "Funny, humans still enjoy sports even though a human sprinter will never run as fast as a motorcycle." Well, the thing is that a motorcycle doesn't actually run. It'll be interesting to see what happens to sports like sprinting and boxing when humanoid robots get advanced enough to be able to actually compete in these sports. I don't think they'll be quite as catastrophically affected as chess has been, since study with the robots isn't likely to give nearly as much of an advantage to players in those sports as studying with chess computers has given to chess players. But it'll still be interesting to see how they react once robots can actually beat them at their game.

ikono 15y ago

Kasparov wrote another article about this topic. It turns out that a computer paired with a human is far stronger than the computer alone. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-chess-master-and-the-computer/?pagination=false http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2010/feb/11/the-che...

Fuzzwah 15y ago

It is very obvious if an entrant in a running race is riding a motocycle. Its less obvious if someone is using a computer to cheat at chess.