Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

To: ChessExpert
Reminds me of the words of Danish Chess Grandmaster Bent Larsen: “Long analysis, wrong analysis.”

Was that before or after the computer won? :)

116 posted on 12/15/2016 3:01:08 PM PST by amorphous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 115 | View Replies ]


To: amorphous

The words were uttered long before computers became so strong at chess. But I’ve noticed that computers sometimes get things wrong in long analysis too.

Chess has always been a leading area in “artificial intelligence” (AI). Chess playing programs are very, very strong. Yet they display no intelligence! Here are a few examples.

People correctly realize that if you repeat an position (in all respects), the evaluation of the position is unchanged. Sometimes computers think otherwise. They plan to repeat a position so as to push a problem beyond the computer’s planning horizon.

Computers don’t understand “initiative” or “attack,” only believing their consequences when they see their consequences.

I once had a “fortress” position against a strong computer program. The computer thought it had an advantage, but had no way to break down the fortress. We continued on for many moves to no effect. A person would have learned from its failure to make progress. The computer never learned.

Computers do compute and very fast too. I was once analyzing alongside a computer and noticed that it had considered millions of positions in our minutes of simultaneous analysis. I’ve probably not considered a million positions in my lifetime!


126 posted on 12/16/2016 7:42:50 AM PST by ChessExpert (It's not compassion when you use government to give other people's money away.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 116 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson