MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Will computers become conscious? (NEW CONCEPTS)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

OR will the evil synthetics choose to ELIMINATE US.

I am puzzled. I thought it was common ground -- certainly among AEists - that this must already have taken place. Since the universe is sixteen thousand million years old and 'human beings' have managed to achieve near robotic simulations in about one million years, it follows that simulations must infest the universe. Of which presumably we are one.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Wile E. Coyote wrote:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/14/can-solve-chess-problem-holds-key-human-consciousness/

75 years after Bletchley Park sought codebreakers in the Second World War by placing a crossword in The Telegraph, scientists are again inviting readers to pit their wits against a new conundrum to find the quickest minds.

The puzzle coincides with the launch of the new Penrose Institute, founded by Sir Roger Penrose, emeritus Professor at the Mathematical Institute of Oxford, who shared the World Prize in physics with Professor Stephen Hawking in 1988 for his work on black hole singularities
.



So he devised a chess problem.

AEists can try their skill?


Let's take a look.

Why does the computer think it's winning for black?

Plug the position into a computer, it evaluates a winning advantage for black something like plus 25 pawns........ it's seeing the materiel advantage......run it for a couple of hours the advantage will still be the same...its concrete calculations won't solve the problem, even though it's calculated billions of positions.......

Why does the human see it as an immediate draw?

You simply take the advice of the Great David Bronstein...IF you can't understand a position you split (chunk) the position into manageable parts.....

Divide the board in half....

On the right hand side a white king sits with three black bishops, all that run on black squares only. Nothing of these can attack a king on a white square. They cannot give checkmate.......

Take a look at the left side, the black pieces are caged by the white pawns, they can't move. (unless white is stupid/greedy enough to capture a black rook releasing the cage........)

It's a draw.

It's a simple and very contrived example of FORCE MULTIPLICATION

It is not a real game position, it's a contrivance to illustrate a point about the way humans must think but computers can't.

Of course ....anybody that thinks this was a real game would be certified insane....

What is is, what was.........

So why do you lot think that the battle of Thermopylae actually happened ?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Since we have never been asked, your question is impertinent. Clearly it didn't because three hundred cannot hold out against three million. cf Horatio on the bridge, the Germans at Monte Cassino etc.

Speaking of which, the British generals in Greece during the 1941 campaign argued for a defence line at Thermopylae because they were classically trained. Their Greek allies, who weren't, pointed out that Thermopylae was so wide you'd need several armoured brigades on top of the three hundred hoplites, so declined the request.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Apologies. No impertinence intended.

So what about Cannae?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Cannae?

Yes, all right if you must.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

What's this then?

Alpha Zero has just beaten the world chess engine champion.......

So what?

Up to now chess engines have been highly dependent on chess players/programmers who have added heuristics to the brute force calculation of the silicon beast and hey presto.

Ok, so what?

Alpha Zero has lost the heuristics plus the opening books, plus the endgame bases.

Eh?

So he just calculates, Alpha Zero learns by just playing millions of games against himself, and draws the much needed conclusions....

How long did he take to become the strongest engine ?

Just 4 hours to become the strongest player on the planet.

https://www.sciencealert.com/it-took-4-hours-google-s-ai-world-s-best-chess-player-deepmind-alphazero

How can Alpha Zero calculate so much?

Now that is the point..... he calculates less by calculating smarter .
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I know it's off-topic but how are chess tournaments conducted nowadays i.e. how can you prevent the players getting messages from someone with a chess machine in front of them? Is it like cricket captains not being given the opportunity to get a signal from the pavilion as to whether to go for a review or not?
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I know it's off-topic but how are chess tournaments conducted nowadays i.e. how can you prevent the players getting messages from someone with a chess machine in front of them? Is it like cricket captains not being given the opportunity to get a signal from the pavilion as to whether to go for a review or not?


Well it could (has) happened. There are a number of anti cheating mechanisms, eg involving banning personal electric equipment in halls. However if chess is relayed live, then folks outside halls can run engines at home and then text people outside a hall, who then go inside without a phone and use non electrical means of signalling.

The real problem for cheats is that engines suggest non human moves.

If I play a game and every move is a first or second engine choice then it raises suspicion. (why is he playing like an engine?)

You might think that it would only require 1 or 2 good engine moves to tip the balance but you would be wrong.

Let's suppose Mr Coyote is the world's most orthodox classical chess player, he plays the main lines, he stands on the shoulders of those that went before.

I sit at home studying a main line of the Sicilian and let the silicon beast take the strain, the computer hovers at round about 0.00 (equal).

After 20 book moves I let the computer just run, after 4 minutes I notice something astonishing: the computer evaluation switches from equal to black is winning, it's an anti intuitive piece sacrifice.

Jesu I am going to be famous.

Next game I spring my surprise, my opponent takes the piece, and I play the computer's response. The opponent now thinks for half an hour and plays something not particularly great, but it's not what I expected at all. Of course I can't remember the computer analysis so play something human and lose.......

The point is to win with a computer move you often need to follow it up with computer moves, which when taken as a sequence are a giveaway you are using a computer.

Don't get me wrong, computer cheating takes place, but I don't think it's a big problem. The top players don't play like computers, they amalgamate a high standard of fuzzy thinking/intuition, based on pattern recognition and chunking, with a lot of mainly defensive calculation. Games are normally decided by errors, rather brilliant moves. The idea of the logical planned game from start to finish is a myth. The idea of the brilliant move out of nothing is a myth.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I see now why nobody is interested in chess tournaments any more.

P.S. I was once part of a group who would stay up late, night after night, eschewing their normal drugs'n'sex proclivities to play out the day's Fischer/Spassky game.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
I see now why nobody is interested in chess tournaments any more.

P.S. I was once part of a group who would stay up late, night after night, eschewing their normal drugs'n'sex proclivities to play out the day's Fischer/Spassky game.


Which game was your favorite and why?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

A lot of sex and drugs have gone under the bridge since then, m'boy, but if I remember rightly, all the early games were dullish draws, then Spassky made a blunder then a Fischer brilliancy -- (?), (!) in the nomenclature -- then another series of dullish draws, and Fischer was the champion. None of this I assure you dimmed our enthusiasm. Rather the reverse -- perhaps the foundation of the AE belief that dull is often to be preferred.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
A lot of sex and drugs have gone under the bridge since then, m'boy, but if I remember rightly, all the early games were dullish draws, then Spassky made a blunder then a Fischer brilliancy -- (?), (!) in the nomenclature -- then another series of dullish draws, and Fischer was the champion. None of this I assure you dimmed our enthusiasm. Rather the reverse -- perhaps the foundation of the AE belief that dull is often to be preferred.


Err Spassky won the first, the second by default (Fischer protested about TV cameras), the match was nearly cancelled, the third was a brilliant Fischer win, the fourth an exciting draw.....
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Yes, that's what I said. However since you raise the point I might outline the History of Championship Chess, as it may be instructive.

In ye olden days of the Evergreen Game, Capablanca et al, chess was exciting. Then, in 1948, it disappeared behind the Iron Curtain and everyone lost interest. Then came Fischer/Spassky. But then something else happened: everyone became dorks and opening and middle game theory became so studied and so stereotyped that it all came down to whether Black could hold on for the draw. Which he normally did. Though not she because of the Polgars.

I do remember the events now you describe them but I think you will agree even by 1972 (was it?) the drawishness had already settled in for the long haul. I think ultimately it was this that did for chess as a spectator sport. Now the world championship itself relies on obscure potentates just to exist. But I am willing to listen to the true story.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:
Yes, that's what I said. However since you raise the point I might outline the History of Championship Chess, as it may be instructive.


Aha Monseigneur Harper, a knight with known form for slaying myths, finally turns his attention on a topic worthy of his talents. A trembling Caissa is about to be disrobed. http://www.chess-poster.com/english/history/caissa.htm


Mick Harper wrote:
In ye olden days of the Evergreen Game, Capablanca et al, chess was exciting.


This is a bit more radical than even I was expecting, still the AE position is to be supportive. Orthodoxy might be less so. Lets find out.

orthodoxy wrote:

The famous Evergreen Game was played between Adolf Anderssen and Jean Dufresne in July 1852. At the time, there was no formal title of "World Champion", Andersson was widely considered to be the best player in the world after winning the first major international chess tournament in 1851. This was probably an informal game.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTovV-scfIQ

Capablanca was most probably not involved as he was born in 1888.

Capablanca became known as one of, if not the, greatest ever players mainly because of his endgame play. Fischer dissented on this point saying that Capa's great strength was his subtle late middle game play, but nobody up to MJH has Capa as a hacker.

Mick Harper wrote:

Then, in 1948, it disappeared behind the Iron Curtain and everyone lost interest.


orthodoxy wrote:
This might be an exaggeration, whilst Botvinnik had a solid scientific positional style, Mikhail Tal is generally thought to have played some of the most beautiful attacking games ever. Many regard Tal as a genius, ...an exception being one Mikhail Tal who claimed the genius title for another Soviet Player David Bronstein who also played a number of brilliant games......


Mick Harper wrote:

Then came Fischer/Spassky. But then something else happened: everyone became dorks and opening and middle game theory became so studied and so stereotyped that it all came down to whether Black could hold on for the draw. Which he normally did. Though not she because of the Polgars.I do remember the events now you describe them but I think you will agree even by 1972 (was it?) the drawishness had already settled in for the long haul. I think ultimately it was this that did for chess as a spectator sport. Now the world championship itself relies on obscure potentates just to exist. But I am willing to listen to the true story


ortho wrote:
Both Capa and Fischer were concerned that chess was becoming played out, dull and over analysed, the problem with this is that just as you beleive this to be the case, along comes a new more inventive attacking tyro.... in Capablancas case this was Alekhine. Fischer was followed by a subrtle positional player Karpov...but then we had a new era of attacking chess introduced by Gary Kasparov...(a lover of Alekhine and Tal)


Caissa is still waiting. Still what you posted was new and radically different from the accepted orthodoxy. Maybe a bit more work is needed?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Of course I knew neither the Evergreen nor Capablanca were world champions(hips) which is why I worded it carefully. I was going to use Alekhine but since he was Russian it would have spoiled the flow.

nobody up to MJH has Capa as a hacker

I thought I was making the opposite point.

Then, in 1948, it disappeared behind the Iron Curtain and everyone lost interest.

This might be an exaggeration, whilst Botvinnik had a solid scientific positional style, Mikhail Tal is generally thought to have played some of the most beautiful attacking games ever. Many regard Tal as a genius, ...an exception being one Mikhail Tal who claimed the genius title for another Soviet Player David Bronstein who also played a number of brilliant games......

You are missing my point. It was because the World Championship became a de facto internal Soviet championship that the world lost comparative interest. You do however make my point in that Botvinnik was able to (mostly) hang on to his title by dorkish means (“solid scientific positional style) against his more brilliant opponents.

There is some sociology here too. The Soviets liked a) ‘science’ and b) Russia whereas Bronstein and Tal were a) brilliant and b) Jewish and Estonian (?). This preference continued into the Karpov/ Kasparov era.

Both Capa and Fischer were concerned that chess was becoming played out, dull and over analysed

I rest my case.

Fischer was followed by a subtle positional player Karpov

I rest my case again.

Then we had a new era of attacking chess introduced by Gary Kasparov...(a lover of Alekhine and Tal)

And then Kasparov was beaten by Big Blue and the world lost interest forever.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10  Next

Jump to:  
Page 9 of 10

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group