How deep does a human think when playing chess?

[david_32626]

You must be confusing me with another person. I never said a computer couldn't beat a human. I just said and will say again. A computer needs more processing power to think like a human so it can play like a human. I will say that there is no computer program that I'm aware of that plays at a TopGM level without searching Millions of positions a second. Just remember Nick computers are stupid they can't think for themselves they only calculate what their programmer told them to. one day this could change, but we must look to the future not to the past.

No I said computers cannot beat a GM and I mean that. The point that I am trying to establish is that you do not have to go into the gazillions of processing speed. A fairer comparison would have been to use a comparison base such as DeGroot's quote for example.

From that base you might now have programs (30 years later) so developed that they do think play like a GM at similar depths of thought. Hence the 6 or 7 ply argument that I am making.

But although I state that engines cannot beat a GM today under these conditions, I do think engine porgrammers today are well capapable of achieving it if some focus was placed on this rather then speed, speed, speed.

I hope that explains better what I mean.

Yes, it does explain what you mean better. Now let me explain better or atleast try.. For a computer to beable to make such intelligent decisions based from very few positions like a GM can do. That computer would have to beable to think like a Human. The human Brain is around 30+ times faster than the computer Deep Blue that beat G. Kasparov. Deep Blue was searching at around 200 millions positions a second. G. Kasparov was searching at around 3-5 positions a second. so it obviously requires a lot of processing power to only look at such a few positions and make really strong moves. it requires years of experience and also tons of processing power. this is why programmers have only had one way to go about it.. but when the common computer is as powerful as the human brain then maybe we could achieve this feat you propose.

I hear you clearly David, but try to hear me. I will use the example of Mephisto Lyon again (because I am currently looking at it, playing a game in my tournament). It is 12 MHz, it doesn't let you read nodes on it unfortunately (at least I have not been able to) therefore it searches probably at less then 2000 nodes per second. If it played a game of brute force, in 2hrs/40 it would not make it through 5 ply. In selective however it will make moves 5/6/7 plies deep and search variations (4-6 approx) upto 12 deep maximum and it plays ELO 2200 (made in 1990)

Therefore lets assume (please take this just as a base for equality, nothing else), that a rule is established that this is the base for all matches against GM's (rightly or wrongly is also irrelevant). Now in 1990 the GM would have had the advantage because Lyon was ELO 2200 and GM is 2800. But, with the above base firmly established now... today 20 years later (from the date of the birth of Lyon) where would an engine be? If those would have been the established rules? 7 deep max in 2hrs/40 3-4 variations up to 12 ply. Under these rules speed would be irrelevant, because a computer today does all this in less than a second.

I would at the very least expect programmers to have improved upon Lyon's 2200 Elo under these conditions 20 years later or what do you think?

Best regards

Nick

Well it's 20 years later and programs are atleast a 1000 elo stronger. and look at a 1000 times more positions per second. Programmers are mostly intelligent people and the reason why they can't make a program that searches as effiecently as a GM is because computers lack the memory capacity and processing power. but in 10-20 years we might have one sitting on our desks. holding a conversation with us while playing a game of chess with us where it seems like a human playing instead of it obviously seemly like a crude-brute of a chess player

[Uri Blass]

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

You must be confusing me with another person. I never said a computer couldn't beat a human. I just said and will say again. A computer needs more processing power to think like a human so it can play like a human. I will say that there is no computer program that I'm aware of that plays at a TopGM level without searching Millions of positions a second. Just remember Nick computers are stupid they can't think for themselves they only calculate what their programmer told them to. one day this could change, but we must look to the future not to the past.

By the same logic it is possible that humans cannot think for themselves and they just calculate what god told them.

I think that we do not know how humans think and humans do not know to describe their thoughts.
I do not trust the number of positions that humans tell that they search
in some research not because they lie but because they do not know how their brain work.

Uri

Hi Uri,
Not that I want this to be about god, but didn't god program us with free will and the ability to make choices on our own.. well in the future hopefully will have some computers that can do the same, but for now atleast computers and humans aren't similiar in that matter..

I do not know how god programmed us and it is not obvious that we have free will.

I prefer to assume that we have because I can lose nothing by this assumption(if we have not free will I had no choice but to assume that we have free will so I lose nothing).

[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.

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

You must be confusing me with another person. I never said a computer couldn't beat a human. I just said and will say again. A computer needs more processing power to think like a human so it can play like a human. I will say that there is no computer program that I'm aware of that plays at a TopGM level without searching Millions of positions a second. Just remember Nick computers are stupid they can't think for themselves they only calculate what their programmer told them to. one day this could change, but we must look to the future not to the past.

By the same logic it is possible that humans cannot think for themselves and they just calculate what god told them.

I think that we do not know how humans think and humans do not know to describe their thoughts.
I do not trust the number of positions that humans tell that they search
in some research not because they lie but because they do not know how their brain work.

Uri

Hi Uri,
Not that I want this to be about god, but didn't god program us with free will and the ability to make choices on our own.. well in the future hopefully will have some computers that can do the same, but for now atleast computers and humans aren't similiar in that matter..

I do not know how god programmed us and it is not obvious that we have free will.

I prefer to assume that we have because I can lose nothing by this assumption(if we have not free will I had no choice but to assume that we have free will so I lose nothing).

If you do know how a computer programs are programmed ( by humans) without free will, but you don't know if humans were programmed that way then why would you assume that it is logical to concluded that we were programmed the same way??? your changing your opinion then?