Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Harvey Williamson, bob

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.

mcostalba
Posts: 2681
Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 7:17 pm

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by mcostalba » Sat Jun 03, 2017 5:15 am

The term AI associated to a chess engine is totally misleading. There is no AI in a traditional chess engine more than can be in a CAD or in a word processor. This article is a blast from the 90's, but we are in 2017 now.

This is just a gross pitch to IBM Watson that is just basically a text search algorithm connected to a database just like Google search. It doesn't understand what it's reading.

http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... -16477207/

http://www.rogerschank.com/fraudulent-c ... son-and-AI

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11751267

I am surprised Sientific American publishes such garbage, very probably IBM is sponsor there.

Michel
Posts: 2000
Joined: Sun Sep 28, 2008 11:50 pm

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by Michel » Sat Jun 03, 2017 6:45 am

Who knows what constitutes "intelligence". Is a bacteria intelligent? Is a fly intelligent? I would say that a fly is intelligent but does it "reason"? Perhaps it only uses pattern recognition to survive? It's all a matter of degree. The same goes for "artificial intelligence".
Ideas=science. Simplification=engineering.
Without ideas there is nothing to simplify.

syzygy
Posts: 4368
Joined: Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:56 pm

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by syzygy » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:19 am

mcostalba wrote:The term AI associated to a chess engine is totally misleading. There is no AI in a traditional chess engine more than can be in a CAD or in a word processor. This article is a blast from the 90's, but we are in 2017 now.
What is AI?
Artificial intelligence (AI) is intelligence exhibited by machines. In computer science, the field of AI research defines itself as the study of "intelligent agents": any device that perceives its environment and takes actions that maximize its chance of success at some goal.[1]

[1] The intelligent agent paradigm:
  • Russell & Norvig 2003, pp. 27, 32–58, 968–972
  • Poole, Mackworth & Goebel 1998, pp. 7–21
  • Luger & Stubblefield 2004, pp. 235–240
  • Hutter 2005, pp. 125–126
The definition used in this article, in terms of goals, actions, perception and environment, is due to Russell & Norvig (2003). Other definitions also include knowledge and learning as additional criteria.
Certainly a chess engine perceives its environment (the chess board) and takes actions (selects moves) that maximizes its chance of success at some goal (that of winning the game). Chess engines also encode knowledge, and many include a basic form of learning.

So a chess engine is an example of AI as that term is used in the field.

Whether there is "real intelligence" in a chess engine is another question. To answer it one first needs to have a definition of "real intelligence".

If a chess engine does not exhibit "real intelligence" because we understand how they work, then I guess the human brain will stop being referred to as "intelligent" once we fully understand how it functions...

smatovic
Posts: 548
Joined: Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:18 pm
Location: Hamburg, Germany
Full name: Srdja Matovic
Contact:

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by smatovic » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:34 am

Intelligence is what an intelligence test measures,
and in the article they pointed out...
So it makes sense to use chess as a measuring stick for the development of artificial intelligence.
But i guess you are right,
in 2017 we associate with AI
something different than an chess playing engine from the 90s.

--
Srdja

pilgrimdan
Posts: 369
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2011 8:49 pm

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by pilgrimdan » Sat Jun 03, 2017 10:38 am

"An important part of what we’re doing right now is taking very advanced artificial neural network–based systems that tend to be very black box—

they aren’t particularly good at explaining why they’re recommending what they’re recommending

—and giving them the capability to explain themselves.

How can you really trust a recommendation coming out of system if it can’t explain it?"


this part of the article was kinda scary ...

no wonder folks don't have a warm fuzzy about AI ...

User avatar
Steve Maughan
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:28 pm
Location: Florida, USA
Contact:

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by Steve Maughan » Sat Jun 03, 2017 11:02 am

Hi Marco,
mcostalba wrote:The term AI associated to a chess engine is totally misleading. There is no AI in a traditional chess engine more than can be in a CAD or in a word processor. (snip)
I sort of agree. Is there any computer application which you'd say is really AI? Isn't everything which is now called AI really just using computer power to make a decision, which is a known set of possible choices, using fuzzy inputs, where the outcome of the decision can be evaluated as right or wrong? There isn't any higher level of thinking going on. A computer application isn't coming up with radically new concepts.

Steve
http://www.chessprogramming.net - Maverick Chess Engine

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6037
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:06 pm

AI is a contradiction in terms.

there is no ai without a living soul.

if computers have souls, then I would agree they could be intelligent, but that is hardly the case.

intelligence from Latin, intel-lego, means understanding.

what could an electrical circuit understand, no matter how complicated?

there is no understanding without pain, and no understanding without happiness.

even the simplest mathematical calculation, like 2+2 = 4, in order to be perceivable/understandable, is impossible without the most basic kind of egoistic attitude, be it positive or negative.

so, we will have ai, when robots start suffering and rejoicing, deep within.

User avatar
hgm
Posts: 22911
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 9:06 am
Location: Amsterdam
Full name: H G Muller
Contact:

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by hgm » Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:18 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:what could an electrical circuit understand, no matter how complicated?
Uh? The human brain is an electrical circuit. Conduction is by ions rather than electrons, but that just makes it a bit slower.

User avatar
mclane
Posts: 15328
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 5:40 pm
Location: germany
Contact:

Re: Scientific American article on Computer Chess

Post by mclane » Sat Jun 03, 2017 12:34 pm

For an intelligent chess program you need to forget about things.
It must be selective and only follow those moves that are interesting. If it remembers anything it cannot play intelligent.
That's how humans do it.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....

Post Reply