How deep does a human think when playing chess?

[Dr.Wael Deeb]

Well,if the foreigner is a nutcase,he will be misunderstood by so many people....I am talking in general of course,no offence is intended
Dr.D

How could someone be a nutcase if Bob understands his questions? Check. I think it's also Mate.

Yeah,1-0 for you Rolf
Dr.D

[david_32626]

When the common computer has as much processing power as the human brain then we might get to see a chess program that understands and plays chess more like a GM. Even though a computer looks at more positions during a game the human brain is processing much more information.

Hi David,
I am not sure if I would be willing to agree to that either. The quote was that a human looks at 35 future positions on average. (in say in 3 minutes (2hrs/40) ) What if you take Father's tactical comments into consideration and a computer also is restricted to looking only say 7 ply deep and 35 future positions, but someday it is programmed to be tactically better. Then perhaps a GM would be beaten at 6 or 7 ply right? maybe ?

It would then be just a matter of who is tactically better? What if a program can be taught within these confines to learn from its mistakes...what then?

If you assume that both human and computer search selectively then it would be just a matter of who selectively searches (tactically?) better and not deeper?

Best regards

Nick

Again before a computer can play like a human using intelligent decisions rather than mostly brute force calculations it is going to require a completely new approach so the computer can think instead of only being able to calculate. In reality a computer chess program is nothing more than a human playing chess with a tool. A computer without an operator is no different than a car without a driver.

[Uri Blass]

<snipped>

There is no consideration for a8 at all it is rejected the moment you see the position.
Nick

If Ra8+ is rejected then it is considered by definition(not for a long time but even using 0.1 second for calculating line is enough to claim that it is considered)

Moves that are not considered are moves that humans simply ignore them.

Uri

Hi Uri,

I am not neccessarily disagreeing with you. But your example is less then 2 ply deep. There is nothing further to consider on that move. It is instantly rejected. The same as the rest of your position, the experienced human does not calculate immediately. He looks at it and knows immediately that he has to stop the pawn. His mind starts working on that. So he will keep his King close to the pawn and have his bishop in a position to intercept the pawn and take it...game over.. Nothing in that position requires much plys.. 1 ply (glances at the board) would be enough to draw the game.

best regards

Nick

I agree that you do not need to calculate much in the diagram that I gave.

My point is not about the specific diagram but about the number of positions that humans search usually in chess(not in simple endgames)

I believe that they may consider moves that they do not claim that they consider and it was my point and if practically they give 35 positions when they write their thoughts then it does not mean that they do not consider more positions.

Uri

I agree Uri, remember the quote said on average. So it could be 10 in some positons and 100 in others.

regards

Nick

I disagree
I believe that the average is more than 35 positions and I believe that you cannot trust humans to tell you what they do because they simply do not know how they think.

They may calculate positions when they even do not know that they do it.
Uri

[Spacious_Mind]

<snipped>

There is no consideration for a8 at all it is rejected the moment you see the position.
Nick

If Ra8+ is rejected then it is considered by definition(not for a long time but even using 0.1 second for calculating line is enough to claim that it is considered)

Moves that are not considered are moves that humans simply ignore them.

Uri

Hi Uri,

I am not neccessarily disagreeing with you. But your example is less then 2 ply deep. There is nothing further to consider on that move. It is instantly rejected. The same as the rest of your position, the experienced human does not calculate immediately. He looks at it and knows immediately that he has to stop the pawn. His mind starts working on that. So he will keep his King close to the pawn and have his bishop in a position to intercept the pawn and take it...game over.. Nothing in that position requires much plys.. 1 ply (glances at the board) would be enough to draw the game.

best regards

Nick

I agree that you do not need to calculate much in the diagram that I gave.

My point is not about the specific diagram but about the number of positions that humans search usually in chess(not in simple endgames)

I believe that they may consider moves that they do not claim that they consider and it was my point and if practically they give 35 positions when they write their thoughts then it does not mean that they do not consider more positions.

Uri

I agree Uri, remember the quote said on average. So it could be 10 in some positons and 100 in others.

regards

Nick

I disagree
I believe that the average is more than 35 positions and I believe that you cannot trust humans to tell you what they do because they simply do not know how they think.

They may calculate positions when they even do not know that they do it.
Uri

Hi Uri,

Let's for example assume he tested 1000 people over 10 years. (I don't have any idea of who and how many he tested, this is just an example).

1) Do you think that all 1000 lied?
2) Do you think the results would show a high, a low and an average?

What if you discard the the top 10% high answers and the bottom 10% low answers... Would this make the findings more accurate? because I would assume by doing this the high and low exaggerations would be taken out of the equation. I don't know perhaps this was done, but I would assume there was some method to it. After all the findings would have been re-checked several times by several countries and other experts.

Best regards

Nick

regards

Nick

ps. My chess fen example is a checkmate in 3 moves (6 ply). How many positions do you think you woould need to look at to find it and how long would it take in match conditions?

me.. personally, I would have glanced just long enough to make sure my white pieces are good (maybe 2 ply) and taken the queen with the rook or Knight Black was already lost I would not be looking hard for the quickest or nicest way to win . What would be the point the game for Black is lost

Best regards

Nick

[Spacious_Mind]

When the common computer has as much processing power as the human brain then we might get to see a chess program that understands and plays chess more like a GM. Even though a computer looks at more positions during a game the human brain is processing much more information.

Hi David,
I am not sure if I would be willing to agree to that either. The quote was that a human looks at 35 future positions on average. (in say in 3 minutes (2hrs/40) ) What if you take Father's tactical comments into consideration and a computer also is restricted to looking only say 7 ply deep and 35 future positions, but someday it is programmed to be tactically better. Then perhaps a GM would be beaten at 6 or 7 ply right? maybe ?

It would then be just a matter of who is tactically better? What if a program can be taught within these confines to learn from its mistakes...what then?

If you assume that both human and computer search selectively then it would be just a matter of who selectively searches (tactically?) better and not deeper?

Best regards

Nick

Again before a computer can play like a human using intelligent decisions rather than mostly brute force calculations it is going to require a completely new approach so the computer can think instead of only being able to calculate. In reality a computer chess program is nothing more than a human playing chess with a tool. A computer without an operator is no different than a car without a driver.

Hi David,
All the good programs calculate selectively and not with Brute Force. I think you might find that a grandmaster even under my stated conditions could be beaten today

Let a program go 6 deep and selectively choose 3-4 of the best variations and let it search those 12 deep. Is that not kind of what humans do ?

Well ask Steve B to pull out his Mephisto Lyon made in 1990 and set it to 2hrs/40 and watch what it does.. It will play a good game of chess at around 2200 ELo, that's what it will do.

So why would it not be possible to assume that 20 years later a program would not be able to beat a GM? under these conditions?

Engines do the same thing, even at fixed ply they selectively search a lot deeper given varations of their choice.

Best regards

Nick

[david_32626]

When the common computer has as much processing power as the human brain then we might get to see a chess program that understands and plays chess more like a GM. Even though a computer looks at more positions during a game the human brain is processing much more information.

Hi David,
I am not sure if I would be willing to agree to that either. The quote was that a human looks at 35 future positions on average. (in say in 3 minutes (2hrs/40) ) What if you take Father's tactical comments into consideration and a computer also is restricted to looking only say 7 ply deep and 35 future positions, but someday it is programmed to be tactically better. Then perhaps a GM would be beaten at 6 or 7 ply right? maybe ?

It would then be just a matter of who is tactically better? What if a program can be taught within these confines to learn from its mistakes...what then?

If you assume that both human and computer search selectively then it would be just a matter of who selectively searches (tactically?) better and not deeper?

Best regards

Nick

Again before a computer can play like a human using intelligent decisions rather than mostly brute force calculations it is going to require a completely new approach so the computer can think instead of only being able to calculate. In reality a computer chess program is nothing more than a human playing chess with a tool. A computer without an operator is no different than a car without a driver.

Hi David,
All the good programs calculate selectively and not with Brute Force. I think you might find that a grandmaster even under my stated conditions could be beaten today

Let a program go 6 deep and selectively choose 3-4 of the best variations and let it search those 12 deep. Is that not kind of what humans do ?

Well ask Steve B to pull out his Mephisto Lyon made in 1990 and set it to 2hrs/40 and watch what it does.. It will play a good game of chess at around 2200 ELo, that's what it will do.

So why would it not be possible to assume that 20 years later a program would not be able to beat a GM? under these conditions?

Engines do the same thing, even at fixed ply they selectively search a lot deeper given varations of their choice.

Best regards

Nick

Chess programs look at millions of positions per second, compared to a human's 3-5. so even though programs use selective search it's still "mostly brute force calculation". In order for a computer to play chess like a human it'll have to beable to think like a human. Therefore the common computer doesn't have enough raw processing power to achieve this yet. Its going to be another 10-20 years.

[Spacious_Mind]

When the common computer has as much processing power as the human brain then we might get to see a chess program that understands and plays chess more like a GM. Even though a computer looks at more positions during a game the human brain is processing much more information.

Hi David,
I am not sure if I would be willing to agree to that either. The quote was that a human looks at 35 future positions on average. (in say in 3 minutes (2hrs/40) ) What if you take Father's tactical comments into consideration and a computer also is restricted to looking only say 7 ply deep and 35 future positions, but someday it is programmed to be tactically better. Then perhaps a GM would be beaten at 6 or 7 ply right? maybe ?

It would then be just a matter of who is tactically better? What if a program can be taught within these confines to learn from its mistakes...what then?

If you assume that both human and computer search selectively then it would be just a matter of who selectively searches (tactically?) better and not deeper?

Best regards

Nick

Again before a computer can play like a human using intelligent decisions rather than mostly brute force calculations it is going to require a completely new approach so the computer can think instead of only being able to calculate. In reality a computer chess program is nothing more than a human playing chess with a tool. A computer without an operator is no different than a car without a driver.

Hi David,
All the good programs calculate selectively and not with Brute Force. I think you might find that a grandmaster even under my stated conditions could be beaten today

Let a program go 6 deep and selectively choose 3-4 of the best variations and let it search those 12 deep. Is that not kind of what humans do ?

Well ask Steve B to pull out his Mephisto Lyon made in 1990 and set it to 2hrs/40 and watch what it does.. It will play a good game of chess at around 2200 ELo, that's what it will do.

So why would it not be possible to assume that 20 years later a program would not be able to beat a GM? under these conditions?

Engines do the same thing, even at fixed ply they selectively search a lot deeper given varations of their choice.

Best regards

Nick

Chess programs look at millions of positions per second, compared to a human's 3-5. so even though programs use selective search it's still "mostly brute force calculation". In order for a computer to play chess like a human it'll have to beable to think like a human. Therefore the common computer doesn't have enough raw processing power to achieve this yet. Its going to be another 10-20 years.

The Mephisto Magellan averages about 2500 nodes per second and plays at Elo 2250.

regards

Nick

[david_32626]

When the common computer has as much processing power as the human brain then we might get to see a chess program that understands and plays chess more like a GM. Even though a computer looks at more positions during a game the human brain is processing much more information.

Hi David,
I am not sure if I would be willing to agree to that either. The quote was that a human looks at 35 future positions on average. (in say in 3 minutes (2hrs/40) ) What if you take Father's tactical comments into consideration and a computer also is restricted to looking only say 7 ply deep and 35 future positions, but someday it is programmed to be tactically better. Then perhaps a GM would be beaten at 6 or 7 ply right? maybe ?

It would then be just a matter of who is tactically better? What if a program can be taught within these confines to learn from its mistakes...what then?

If you assume that both human and computer search selectively then it would be just a matter of who selectively searches (tactically?) better and not deeper?

Best regards

Nick

Again before a computer can play like a human using intelligent decisions rather than mostly brute force calculations it is going to require a completely new approach so the computer can think instead of only being able to calculate. In reality a computer chess program is nothing more than a human playing chess with a tool. A computer without an operator is no different than a car without a driver.

Hi David,
All the good programs calculate selectively and not with Brute Force. I think you might find that a grandmaster even under my stated conditions could be beaten today

Let a program go 6 deep and selectively choose 3-4 of the best variations and let it search those 12 deep. Is that not kind of what humans do ?

Well ask Steve B to pull out his Mephisto Lyon made in 1990 and set it to 2hrs/40 and watch what it does.. It will play a good game of chess at around 2200 ELo, that's what it will do.

So why would it not be possible to assume that 20 years later a program would not be able to beat a GM? under these conditions?

Engines do the same thing, even at fixed ply they selectively search a lot deeper given varations of their choice.

Best regards

Nick

Chess programs look at millions of positions per second, compared to a human's 3-5. so even though programs use selective search it's still "mostly brute force calculation". In order for a computer to play chess like a human it'll have to beable to think like a human. Therefore the common computer doesn't have enough raw processing power to achieve this yet. Its going to be another 10-20 years.

The Mephisto Magellan averages about 2500 nodes per second and plays at Elo 2250.

regards

Nick

Do you have a point, because 2500 or millions are both still "mostly brute force calculation" compared to 3-5 a second??? So if you dig around and find a better example, maybe a program that searchs at around 3-5 positions a sec and has and elo of more than 2000 you could make a good point.

[Spacious_Mind]

When the common computer has as much processing power as the human brain then we might get to see a chess program that understands and plays chess more like a GM. Even though a computer looks at more positions during a game the human brain is processing much more information.

Hi David,
I am not sure if I would be willing to agree to that either. The quote was that a human looks at 35 future positions on average. (in say in 3 minutes (2hrs/40) ) What if you take Father's tactical comments into consideration and a computer also is restricted to looking only say 7 ply deep and 35 future positions, but someday it is programmed to be tactically better. Then perhaps a GM would be beaten at 6 or 7 ply right? maybe ?

It would then be just a matter of who is tactically better? What if a program can be taught within these confines to learn from its mistakes...what then?

If you assume that both human and computer search selectively then it would be just a matter of who selectively searches (tactically?) better and not deeper?

Best regards

Nick

Again before a computer can play like a human using intelligent decisions rather than mostly brute force calculations it is going to require a completely new approach so the computer can think instead of only being able to calculate. In reality a computer chess program is nothing more than a human playing chess with a tool. A computer without an operator is no different than a car without a driver.

Hi David,
All the good programs calculate selectively and not with Brute Force. I think you might find that a grandmaster even under my stated conditions could be beaten today

Let a program go 6 deep and selectively choose 3-4 of the best variations and let it search those 12 deep. Is that not kind of what humans do ?

Well ask Steve B to pull out his Mephisto Lyon made in 1990 and set it to 2hrs/40 and watch what it does.. It will play a good game of chess at around 2200 ELo, that's what it will do.

So why would it not be possible to assume that 20 years later a program would not be able to beat a GM? under these conditions?

Engines do the same thing, even at fixed ply they selectively search a lot deeper given varations of their choice.

Best regards

Nick

Chess programs look at millions of positions per second, compared to a human's 3-5. so even though programs use selective search it's still "mostly brute force calculation". In order for a computer to play chess like a human it'll have to beable to think like a human. Therefore the common computer doesn't have enough raw processing power to achieve this yet. Its going to be another 10-20 years.

The Mephisto Magellan averages about 2500 nodes per second and plays at Elo 2250.

regards

Nick

Do you have a point, because 2500 or millions are both still "mostly brute force calculation" compared to 3-5 a second??? So if you dig around and find a better example, maybe a program that searchs at around 3-5 positions a sec and has and elo of more than 2000 you could make a good point.

I have a very clear point right from first my questions, but you seem to not want to accept a different opinion to you... a computer does not need to think in millions of seconds to beat human, that is almost silly to think that. It is a game of chess, most games nowadays computers are better than humans. Why not chess? Why would you be so arrogant and believe that computer would need zillions of processing power to beat a human?

I personally think a lot more work needs to be done on the tactical side of the game then you could even someday do it at 2500 plys a second. BTW I feel kind of worried as a human that you know say we can only do 3-5 a second yet a computer can't beat us

ps. the Mephisto Magellan plays at 20 Mhz how fast is your computer?

[Spacious_Mind]

When the common computer has as much processing power as the human brain then we might get to see a chess program that understands and plays chess more like a GM. Even though a computer looks at more positions during a game the human brain is processing much more information.

Hi David,
I am not sure if I would be willing to agree to that either. The quote was that a human looks at 35 future positions on average. (in say in 3 minutes (2hrs/40) ) What if you take Father's tactical comments into consideration and a computer also is restricted to looking only say 7 ply deep and 35 future positions, but someday it is programmed to be tactically better. Then perhaps a GM would be beaten at 6 or 7 ply right? maybe ?

It would then be just a matter of who is tactically better? What if a program can be taught within these confines to learn from its mistakes...what then?

If you assume that both human and computer search selectively then it would be just a matter of who selectively searches (tactically?) better and not deeper?

Best regards

Nick

Again before a computer can play like a human using intelligent decisions rather than mostly brute force calculations it is going to require a completely new approach so the computer can think instead of only being able to calculate. In reality a computer chess program is nothing more than a human playing chess with a tool. A computer without an operator is no different than a car without a driver.

Hi David,
All the good programs calculate selectively and not with Brute Force. I think you might find that a grandmaster even under my stated conditions could be beaten today

Let a program go 6 deep and selectively choose 3-4 of the best variations and let it search those 12 deep. Is that not kind of what humans do ?

Well ask Steve B to pull out his Mephisto Lyon made in 1990 and set it to 2hrs/40 and watch what it does.. It will play a good game of chess at around 2200 ELo, that's what it will do.

So why would it not be possible to assume that 20 years later a program would not be able to beat a GM? under these conditions?

Engines do the same thing, even at fixed ply they selectively search a lot deeper given varations of their choice.

Best regards

Nick

Chess programs look at millions of positions per second, compared to a human's 3-5. so even though programs use selective search it's still "mostly brute force calculation". In order for a computer to play chess like a human it'll have to beable to think like a human. Therefore the common computer doesn't have enough raw processing power to achieve this yet. Its going to be another 10-20 years.

The Mephisto Magellan averages about 2500 nodes per second and plays at Elo 2250.

regards

Nick

Do you have a point, because 2500 or millions are both still "mostly brute force calculation" compared to 3-5 a second??? So if you dig around and find a better example, maybe a program that searchs at around 3-5 positions a sec and has and elo of more than 2000 you could make a good point.

I have a very clear point right from first my questions, but you seem to not want to accept a different opinion to you... a computer does not need to think in millions of seconds to beat human, that is almost silly to think that. It is a game of chess, most games nowadays computers are better than humans. Why not chess? Why would you be so arrogant and believe that computer would need zillions of processing power to beat a human?

I personally think a lot more work needs to be done on the tactical side of the game then you could even someday do it at 2500 nodes a second. BTW I feel kind of worried as a human that you know say we can only do 3-5 a second yet a computer can't beat us