3 ms·

> On average there are over 17,000 possible moves compared to about 30 for chess; this significantly limits how deep computers can think, but does not seem to a

• nl 13y ago
  The claim is that humans play better than computers, and computers struggle in the face of the high branching factor, so therefor humans aren't affected by it. The theory is that humans use "something else" to "intuitively" understand the strength of a position, and what move to make. The same argument was made for chess. In chess it has become somewhat irrelevant because the low branching factor means computers can see so far ahead than any advantage humans have becomes useless. As far as I know there isn't a generalised theory of what human intuition is doing. People have attempted to build specific models for chess than encoded "chess theory" (which is kinda-sorta formalised intuition), but those models have proven inferior to deep search algorithms.
• anExcitedBeast 13y ago
  On an only tangentially related note, read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance. It explorers why human beings are able to make quality decisions in the face of massive branching factors such as making a chess move or (more relevant to the focus of the book) develop scientific hypothesis. It's also just a great read.