THE COMPUTER CHESS HAS REACHED ITS CRITICAL POINT

[GenoM]

The Computer Chess has reached its critical point. It badly needs new paradigma because the old one has become obsolete.

Let's make my point more clear.

The old paradigma (and the only one existing at the current moment) was the one in which programs had to learn how to play chess stronger than humans. The main part of the labours was directed to that goal (to beat humans) -- and now after decades of attempts as well, it is achieved. At the road to that target the programmers achieved much. Their achievements are undisputable. The programs play stronger than humans.

And now? Now what? In my view now Computer Chess is lacking the goal of worth. What is the current goal of the computer chess? The program that will play stronger than Rybka? Yes, the noble goal, of course, but that goal cannot be sufficient for the new stage of development, for a newer, higher set of the development' spiral. Such a goal can not give a sufficient enough reason of existing of Computer Chess, IMO.

I think that the future degree of development must be found in the exploitation of the new main goal of the computer chess. This has to be the phase of development in which the main goal will be a no which program or engine will reach #1 spot, but which program will manage to effect the human's fashion of game, which progarm will succeed in immitation /and may be re-creation/ of human thinking at the chess board.

So, from my point of view, things returns to the beginning /Turing, Botvinnik/, but already -- enriched by the accomplishments of the old paradigma. The new capital goal, according to me, has to be that the programs will start to play chess the way human play it. This must be the new challenge to the programmers, not who's program will be the #1 in the rating lists of SSDF, CCRL or CEGT.

Sorry for my bad english. I hope that you'll understand what I wanted to say

Regards,
Geno

[Ovyron]

The new capital goal, according to me, has to be that the programs will start to play chess the way human play it.

But why to imitate the way humans play, if the way humans play is flawed?

[Dann Corbit]

I think that the ultimate goal of computer chess is to play perfect chess and eventually to solve the game.

We are still decades away from that.

The thing that worries me is that eventually computers will make moves that I am totally incapable of understanding because the reasons are so deep. Currently, I can take a powerful computer move, and play through the pv and eventually understand the concept. I worry about the day when the goal will be so far off that the moves look aimless to me and I cannot comprehend the reasons for making them even after careful study.

[Terry McCracken]

The new capital goal, according to me, has to be that the programs will start to play chess the way human play it.

But why to imitate the way humans play, if the way humans play is flawed?

I think he means to play very deep positional chess with Real planning like Kasparov or Karpov, without the human weaknesses, such as a tactical oversight.

Terry

[Terry McCracken]

I think that the ultimate goal of computer chess is to play perfect chess and eventually to solve the game.

We are still decades away from that.

The thing that worries me is that eventually computers will make moves that I am totally incapable of understanding because the reasons are so deep. Currently, I can take a powerful computer move, and play through the pv and eventually understand the concept. I worry about the day when the goal will be so far off that the moves look aimless to me and I cannot comprehend the reasons for making them even after careful study.

That would be something to see if it could be done in our lifetime, which isn't too likely

Terry

[GenoM]

The thing that worries me is that eventually computers will make moves that I am totally incapable of understanding because the reasons are so deep. Currently, I can take a powerful computer move, and play through the pv and eventually understand the concept. I worry about the day when the goal will be so far off that the moves look aimless to me and I cannot comprehend the reasons for making them even after careful study.

This thing worries me already, Dann. At the blitz or bullet time controls I can get the "idea" behind computer moves. But looking at the games played on the more powerful computers (such as Rybka vs. Zappa in Mexiko for example) or at the longer time controls on my PC there is a moves and games that are a mistery for me.
And yet one thing. Dann, why, for the god sake, anyone would like to solve the chess? Come on, even if I hypotetically have such a program, I would delete it without a second of hesitation. Chess must be interresting not solved.

I think he means to play very deep positional chess with Real planning like Kasparov or Karpov, without the human weaknesses, such as a tactical oversight.

Yes, Terry, that was what I meant in my post.

PS:
I think that Computer Chess society must look for new approach to the goal of the programs. Solving chess have not to be the main goal. If anything has to be solved it is the secret of the human thinking. Planning. Sort of things Steven Edwards tries to implement in his program Symbolic, and sort of things Ossipov failed to implement in his first attempts to write a chess program. Deep positional chess without tactical oversights. Nice formula, Terry, thank you.

PPS:
but to find the way humans make mistakes and to reproduce it in the program would be great achievement too, I think.

[Anabolic Karpov]

So who or what organisation sets the goals for computer chess?

For a commercial engine or chess software author the goal will be to maintain sufficient superiority or interest in their product to ensure commercial viability.

If you refer to an organisation that is independantly funded then that would be up to that organisation.

I cannot recall the goals of human chess to have changed over the years. They have always been to win the competiotion entered and for the more aspiring, to eventually become World Chess Champion.

Currently, computer chess follows the same rules set out by FIDE as the accepted World governing body but perhaps sooner rather than later there will be a need to change the rules for computer chess to allow for the absolute ability to solve previously unsolvable positions that may arise in a game. The 50 move rule is one that immediately comes to mind. It seems totally inappropriate for computer chess.

AK

[Anabolic Karpov]

I think he means to play very deep positional chess with Real planning like Kasparov or Karpov, without the human weaknesses, such as a tactical oversight.
Terry

Unfortunately we are now at a point in computer chess where the human approach is inadequate. Going down that route would most likely make todays best engines weaker.

In terms of tactics, I believe most folk make the mistake that it is defined by some combination of moves that leads to a spectacular mating attack or big material gain. Tactics concentrating on the promotion or strengths of a pawn may not provide the same spectacle but are just as effective and in all probability more pertinent to the higher level of criteria needed to produce game winning tactics for chess playing engines.

AK

[GenoM]

Of course, there is no organisation that sets the goals for computer chess. The programmers are the people who set goal in front of themselves.

And just a little remark:

I'm affraid computer chess is already giving answers just like the answer SuperComputer in Douglas Adams 'Hitchhiker Guide..." gave: 42

[thciobanu]

Excuse me for intruding...

I for one agree that the goal of computer chess should be the perfect game. Given a position, provide the next best move, even if that might take all the spectacle out of watching chess engines play each other because of the similar (if not identical) moves played every time, which will be more often than not uncomprehensible to the average mind. After all, this falls perfectly into why computers were initially invented and are constantly being developed and improved - they're a tool to help man find solutions to problems by sheer raw computational power.