[extropy-chat] computer chess again

[Chris Hibbert]

> Remarkably all seven of these matches have ended
> in a tie score.  These seven matches represent
> a total of 49 games.  The fact that the top humans 
> and computers are dead even over all that time
> suggest that the humans are getting better at
> exactly the same rate as the top chess software.
> Perhaps someone can suggest a different explanation
> for the even score since 1999.  

This makes some sense to me.  I don't follow chess, but I do pay 
attention to serious backgammon.  There are several extremely good 
backgammon programs these days (all available for reasonable prices if 
you don't mind running them on a PC.)  They all seem to be based on 
neural nets, and have a fairly consistent style.  They are able to 
report on their decisions on a play-by-play scale, and can give advice 
about particular moves.

The best players are starting to come to understand, after very 
detailed analysis, the choices the programs are making in some 
non-obvious cases.  They are starting to incorporate the unconventional 
strategies and trade-offs in their own games, and I've seen at least 
one book that tries to explain to mid-level players what the experts 
are learning about backgammon from the expert programs.

It wouldn't surprise me to hear that chess players, with their long 
history of studying the games of other experts, are taking lessons from 
the grand master programs.  The best human players should be able to 
keep up with the best computer players, except in exhaustive cases like 
  the three piece end-game puzzle that takes 147 moves to mate.  It's 
also not surprising to find out that perfectly played chess should 
usually lead to a draw.

Are chess players publishing analyses of the games of the top-level 
programs?

Chris
-- 
It's always ourselves we find in the sea.
   -- E. E. Cummings
http://www.ecopsychology.org/gatherings4/

Chris Hibbert
hibbert at mydruthers.com
http://discuss.foresight.org/~hibbert