If machines can beat us at games, does it make them more ?
Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 12:33 am
Computer Chess Club
https://talkchess.com/
When a machine is capable of creating a human being without any outside help, we'll safely be able to say they're smarter than us.kinderchocolate wrote:https://blog.csiro.au/machines-can-beat ... ligent-us/
even turing did not ask for thatBrendanJNorman wrote:
When a machine is capable of creating a human being without any outside help, we'll safely be able to say they're smarter than us.
kinderchocolate wrote:https://blog.csiro.au/machines-can-beat ... ligent-us/
Sure!What is white’s winning strategy?
Two kings are on either side of a pawn blockade. White has an opportunity to promote the pawn on F6 to a stronger piece. But that square is being guarded by the black king.
[D]8/3k4/4pPp1/3pP1P1/2pP4/2P5/8/4K3 w - - 0 1
An example problem where human intuition often triumphs over AI. David Ireland, Author provided
For white to win, the white king must move around the blockade via column A and force the black king away. Defeat for black is then inevitable.
Simple enough? Not entirely for a chess AI, which has more difficulty perceiving white’s advantage. This is because it would need to search to a depth of 20 ply to find white’s advantage. In this position, at 15 plies there are 10,142,484,904,590 possible positions (we tried computing to 20 plies but after one week of computation, we gave up).
Most computer chess programs won’t see the winning strategy. Instead, they will move the white king to the centre of the board which is the common strategy when there are only a few pieces on the board.
Human intuition is still a powerful force.
Code: Select all
info depth 26 seldepth 42 multipv 1 score mate 17 nodes 815896 nps 3903808 tbhits 461 time 209 pv e1d2 d7e8 d2c2 e8d8 c2b2 d8d7 b2a3 d7e8 a3a4 e8f7 a4b5 f7f8 b5c5 f8e8 c5d6 e8f7 d6d7 f7f8 d7e6 f8e8 e6d6 e8f8 d6d7 f8g8 e5e6 g8h8 e6e7 h8h7 f6f7 h7g7 e7e8q
Code: Select all
0:00.066 27 2582098 +Mate17 1.Kd2 Kd8 2.Kc2 Kd7 3.Kb2 Ke8 4.Ka3 Kd7 5.Kb4 Ke8 6.Kb5 Kd7 7.Kc5 Ke8 8.Kd6 Kf7 9.Kd7 Kf8 10.Kxe6 Ke8 11.Kd6 Kf7 12.Kd7 Kf8 13.e6 Kg8 14.e7 Kh7 15.f7 Kg7 16.e8=Q Kh7 17.Qg8#
Code: Select all
34 #18 329.5M 4:26.68 e1d1 d7d8 d1c2 d8e8 c2b2 e8f8 b2a3 f8f7 a3b4 f7e8 b4b5 e8f8 b5c6 f8e8 c6d6 e8f7 d6d7 f7f8 d7e6 f8e8 e6d6 e8f7 e5e6 f7f8 e6e7 f8e8 d6c6 e8f7 c6d7
33 #19 181.4M 2:12.90 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3b4 f7e8 b4b5 e8f7 b5c5 f7e8 c5d6 e8f7 d6d7 f7f8 d7e6 f8e8 e6d6 e8f8 d6d7 f8g8 d7e6
32 +16.96 18.6M 0:14.23 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3a4 f7f8 a4b5 f8f7 b5c5 f7g8 c5d6 g8f7
31 +10.41 15.3M 0:11.73 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3a4 f7f8 a4a5 f8e8 a5b4 e8f8 b4c5 f8g8 c5c6 g8f7 c6b6 f7g8
30 +9.97 10.0M 0:07.32 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3b4 f7e8 b4b5 e8f7 b5c6 f7e8 c6d6 e8f7
29 +4.95 6.61M 0:04.67 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3b4 f7e8 b4b5 e8f7 b5c6 f7e8 c6d6 e8f7 d6d7 f7f8 d7e6 f8e8 e6d5 e8f8 e5e6 f8e8 e6e7 e8f7 d5c4 f7e8 c4d5
28 +4.88 3.91M 0:02.75 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3b4 f7e8 b4b5 e8f7 b5c6 f7e8 c6d6 e8f7 d6d7
27 +4.90 3.42M 0:02.39 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3b4 f7e8 b4b5 e8f7 b5c6 f7e8 c6d6 e8f7
26 +4.88 2.01M 0:01.43 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7e8 b2a3 e8f7 a3b4 f7e8 b4b5 e8f7
25 +4.29 1.49M 0:01.07 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7d8 b2a3 d8e8 a3b2
24 +4.29 1.11M 0:00.81 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8d7 c1b2 d7d8 b2a3 d8e8 a3b2
23 +3.58 682373 0:00.51 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8e8 c1b2 e8f7 b2a3 f7f8 a3b4 f8e8 b4b5 e8d8 b5c6 d8e8 c6d6 e8f7
22 +3.52 513721 0:00.39 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8e8 c1b2 e8f7 b2a3 f7f8 a3b4 f8e8 b4b5 e8d8 b5c6 d8e8 c6d6 e8f7 d6d7 f7f8 d7e6 f8e8 e6d5 e8d7 d5c4
21 +3.57 436322 0:00.32 e1d1 d7d8 d1c1 d8e8 c1b2 e8f7 b2a3 f7f8 a3b4 f8e8 b4b5 e8d8 b5c6 d8e8 c6d6 e8f7 d6d7 f7f8 d7e6
21 +1.95 395424 0:00.29 e1e2 d7e8 e2d1 e8f7 d1c1 f7g8 c1b2 g8f8 b2a3 f8f7
20 +1.48 216722 0:00.17 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4g4 d7d8 g4g3 d8e8 g3f3 e8f8 f3g3
19 +1.48 151595 0:00.12 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4g3 d7d8 g3g4 d8d7 g4f4 d7d8 f4e3 d8d7 e3f2 d7d8 f2g2
18 +1.48 109829 0:00.09 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4g3 d7e8 g3f3 e8d7 f3f2 d7e8 f2e2
17 +1.48 80614 0:00.07 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4e3 d7e8 e3f3 e8d7 f3f4 d7e8
16 +1.48 61328 0:00.06 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4e3 d7e8 e3f3 e8f8 f3f4 f8e8 f4g4 e8f7
15 +1.48 41606 0:00.04 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4e3 d7d8 e3f2 d8d7 f2g3 d7e8 g3f3
14 +1.49 27783 0:00.03 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4e3 d7e8 e3f3 e8f8 f3f4 f8f7
13 +1.48 18274 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4e3 d7e8 e3f3 e8f7 f3f4
12 +1.48 12939 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8d7 f4e3 d7e8 e3f3 e8d7
11 +1.50 8882 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f3 f7e8 f3f4 e8f8
10 +1.49 6355 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f4 f7g8 f4f3 g8f7 f3e3 f7f8
9 +1.48 4198 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f4 f7g8 f4f3 g8f7 f3e3
8 +1.49 2737 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f4 f7f8 f4f3
7 +1.52 1636 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8d7 e3f3 d7e8 f3f4
6 +1.51 1083 0:00.01 e1e2 d7e8 e2f3 e8f7 f3f4
5 +1.48 630 0:00.00 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8f7 e3f4
4 +1.48 345 0:00.00 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3 e8d7
3 +1.52 227 0:00.00 e1e2 d7e8 e2e3
3 +1.48 166 0:00.00 e1f1 d7e8 f1e2
3 +0.05 117 0:00.00 f6f7 d7e7 f7f8 e7f8
2 +1.98 14 0:00.00 f6f7 d7e7
1 +1.99 7 0:00.00 f6f7
I believe the article author meant reaching 20 ply by brute-force. That is, compute all the possible moves.Leto wrote:Isn't it bizarre that the article claims their computer searched for a week and it didn't reach a depth of 20 ply on that problem? To me that sounds like something you'd expect from a computer from the 60's. Any computer today should have no problem reaching 20 ply in seconds. A recent dev version of Stockfish finds the mate in less than a second.