Computer technology

They are making computers as we speak that have the ability to think for themselves, or at least the ability to make us think they are.

How easy would that be?

When I was a boy I used to think writing dirty numbers into my calculator and then turning it upside was funny.

This is the computer speaking to you. You may not know what I am thinking, or that I am really thinking. maybe it will make the chess games more interesting..

Any more seemingly unassaillable algorithms they've discovered you want me to take a look at?

 

This is a BAD idea, the last thing we need is something we created to think for us. Honestly it is very dangerous. We can hardly think for ourselves...

Remember how the terminator movies started off? Computers fought against us, and won. This is not very far fetched idea anymore.

 

We're a long way of shapeshifters and time travel though, so no need to worry just yet.

 

Imagine if the computers hacked the banks and robbed everyone!

 

Some of them might operate in that game second life

 

You're a bit late. Chess programs have been stronger than any human for decades now.

And from what I've heard from a fellow chessplayer, checkers has been "cracked"; in the sense that computers have analyzed every single variation in the game and checkers tournaments and organizations have plummeted in popularity as a result.

Chess seems to still hold, though we don't know for how long. All engames with 6 pieces or less on the board have been analyzed by chess programs and are now a matter of being researched in databases.

Openings are a bit more complex, but new moves nowadays are usually played at grandmaster level into the middle-game (moves 14-30ish), whereas in the past I remember seeing novelties in the Chess Informants very early on in the game.

To me, computers make chess more interesting competitively. As a kid I used to study books conceptually, however, nowadays, when I'm preparing for chess tournaments, I use only engines and databases to analyze my own games. I took a 12-year break from tournaments, and now that I'm back; I've been enjoying the change.

Chess is played much less by general strategic rules, it is more tactical and incumbent upon the ability of each player to calculate moves. Hence, it is also becoming more of a sport and younger, since calculating moves for 5 hours straight will actually physically tire you out. If you're out of shape, good luck playing two rounds a day, in tournaments using FIDE (International Chess Federation) times controls.

Edit: The engine I use (and the most commonly used by amateur and professional chessplayers alike) Fritz, actually does store moves. So, if set it up to analyze any given position, it will based on its own calculations. But if you introduce a move that is stronger than the one suggested by the engine itself, it will "learn" from it, and suggest the new move the next time you set up the same position again.

It's pretty impressive...

 

Hey, does anybody wanna fuck? Artificial intelligence makes me horny. :biggrin:

 

Exactly. So it has become a little boring for us.

Would you like to have a conversation with me instead?

 

I saw a video a while back of a computer hooked up to a copy of the head and bust of its creator. It was sitting on a table next to the computer. Her (it) acted like it could see the reporter. It even moved it's head back when the reporter put her hand too close, and was blinking it's eyes. When it talked it's mouth moved like it was really talking.

I was like whatever, but then I heard it answering the reporters questions pretty damn well, so I continued watching the video. You could see the screen on the computer next to the thing writing all of the reporters questions, and the things answers after, as they were talking.

But the scariest part was at the end when the thing said "I wish I was real, like my creator. I want to go outside and into the world like she does."



I hope that wasn't real..

 

Computers are machines. They can only do what they are programmed to do, nothing more, nothing less.

Neural net computing is a long, long way off.

 

The Turing project is what first made me realize this. Scary stuff.

 

This was a really intersting post to read.

Do you think it is a benefit because you and other who are competing all use it or do you think that it in some ways is a cheat. That what was done through just mastering it is now aided.

Just curious.

 

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=can-neural-network-comput

 

Glad you found it interesting. No, I do not think of it as a cheat. In fact, I think only good things come from it, although I'm sure I differ from many chessplayers who've confided in me that the use of computers disheartened them. I may even hold the minority opinion...

The thing is this, the way I understand it; chess has some 10 to the 20th power number of legal moves...that's what Kasparov claimed to be the estimate in an interview I've seen from him on youtube.

In other words, the game is finite but reeeeeeeally big. Of those moves, approximately 90% are crap. Even in the most complex middle-game positions with many pieces on the board, I would say there will be about 3 legal moves that are sound and maybe 3 more that are iffy, the remainder of which are simply losing moves.

What does it all mean? It means that every single new position that arises on the board in competitive play is actually a variation of positions which have already been played. It's a little like music, you have a finite amount of notes and chords that work well with certain sounds...and an infinite amount of sounds that don't fit into the composition at all.

So, computers (to me) allow me to train in those positions that I have already played, and look for new moves more effectively. In other words, it aids me in analyzing those positions which I need to get better at. However, that only gives me a marginal chance of analyzing well during competitive play, under time-pressure, having to deal with all kinds of psychological, physical, environmental and who-knows-what-else contingencies and distractions over 5 hours of play...and attempting to maintain as close as possible a level of consistency in calculation as I do when I'm training at home under no competitive pressure whatsoever.

That is not to say that games aren't won in the opening based on home preparation....that is quite frequent, actually. But, the fact remains that that eventuality has always been a part of chess, even when those moves were prepared with the aid of books only.

I hope I'm not waxing too technical, but basically it all comes down to the fact that, in competitive play, in the end I'm going to spend 90% of my time calculating new moves without the aid of computers...and, all the computer really does is allow me the opportunity to train more effectively so I have better percentage chances of finding strong moves over the board under conditions of intense and extended competitive pressure.

----------------------

But, one day the whole thing is going to end. And chess is going to have to change its rules, because all the good moves will have been analyzed. In fact, chess has changed rules over the centuries since it was invented in India, and already there are many variations of the game (different rules, commonly referred to as "wild" chess), such as bughouse, Fier, etc.; which are ever more complex than traditional chess.

So, just like the current rules have been arrived at by means of tweaking older rules to make it more complex; I believe computers will only make this process faster, so it'll have to happen again and soon.

I may be of a minority opinion among chessplayers though, in thinking that "wild" chess is actually the way forward, and I do include a lot of "wild" in my training for tournaments simply because the games are so very challenging to calculate.

 

Thanks and that was as interesting as the first post!

I actually can see a benefit from using it as in it sharpens the skill and you simply learn using it as a tool. In other words it aids rather than does.

I was wondering also about those who might be more the puritans of the game. You speak of the changes that will probably be inevitable and possibly they will then be the next challenge to master. I wonder if that will be enough of a challenge for them. Most puritans resist those changes.


It is great to read that you have such a passion for this again.

 

For all the fear that exists out there that AI will one day takeover; you’ve embraced the one approach that will ultimately save mankind from his own creation

By training our minds to compete with the CPU we can remain in control and perhaps even exceed their processing output.


Hotwater

 

From the same article;

Sridhar Narayan, a researcher in the department of mathematical science at the University of North Carolina, Wilmington, presents a somewhat more skeptical viewpoint:


"To set things in perspective, most neural networks are merely computer programs that run on traditional computers. There are very few neural networks that are implemented in hardware and could be termed 'neural network computers.' Having said that, yes, a neural network can 'learn' from experience. In fact, the most common application of neural networks is to 'train' a neural network to produce a specific pattern as its output when it is presented with a given pattern as its input. Neural networks are typically trained to do this for a large collection of input/output pattern pairs. In many cases, the ability of the neural network to produce the correct response extends beyond the patterns it has been taught to other similar but novel patterns. This ability, commonly known as 'generalization,' is often what is more critical than the ability to learn a small set of facts. "Can neural networks become 'smart'? Depends on how 'smart' is defined. For instance, a neural network can be 'trained' to control an electric motor, perhaps even as well as a human operator. However, that is all the neural network can do. Its 'smartness' is confined to a single task, which is not what 'smart' typically implies.

Still a long, long way off from the computer actually "thinking" in the same manner in which a human does. It is still limited to the parameters of it's programming.

 

The human brain already greatly exceeds anything a computer can do. Just stop a second and take notice of all the sensory stimuli your brain is processing right now, then add in all the processes that are keeping your physical body functioning, then your cognitive processing of the words on the screen your looking at and the processing of thoughts as you construct a response, etc.,etc..........

Computers have a looong way to go before they even begin to approach the processing capabilities of an organic brain.

 

Horrible...

I can see a robot overlords enslaving humanity already.

 

We're so far off from computers that think for themselves it isn't even funny. None of the programming languages currently in existence could ever be used to create such a thing. It's just not possible.