« Defending English? | Main | Social Responsibility »
September 23, 2005
They use the same pieces but are they playing the same game?
We've reached an age where we can sit a man across the table from a computer and if they both move pieces constrained by the rules of chess, there exists computers that will consistently beat or tie the greatest human chess players.
But are they really playing the same game? I'd argue not.
Take for example kangaroo boxing.
Human beings make sure that the animal obeys the rules. They are both subject to physical laws. But no one would claim that excelling at kangaroo boxing is the same as excelling at real boxing.
Chess games between humans and computers are like this. These games examine if computer scientists can collapse what is know about playing chess algorithmically, into code good enough to emulate the result that a human achieves. In other words, it is an attempt to
overcome the human players strategically superiority with computer massive tactically superiority. But they aren't really doing what a human being does, which is use massive use of heuristics and pattern recognition, and only a very limited ability to examine possible moves. But to those who only wish to see the finest ballet on the chess board, consider that humans are far weaker than horses, and yet feats of human athletics interest us far more.
But another indication that it isn't quite the same game when playing a computer is that the same people who win against the computers lose against other humans. Tricks that work on computers would result in quick defeat against the greatest human players. A German named Eduard Nemeth has a about a 700 point chess score than Kasparov, but has beaten machines to which Kasparov has lost. Nemeth isn't even a grand master. He just knows where stick the monkey wrench.
Posted by OneEyedMan at September 23, 2005 4:05 PM
Comments
It seems sort of silly to claim that because two entities are playing a game in a very different style that they are playing a different game. Though I understand your point, it seems to me that this is simply a more dramatic version of natural variations in playing style. For instance if one football team were to work exclusively on its running game and simply forgo passing, and another team were to work entirely on passing would anyone claim that they were playing a different game? Of course not, they have just chosen to develop different styles of play.
On another note this article makes me think about Advanced Chess which is an attempt to have a human computer symbiosis in play. I am always amazed by the idea of combining intellect with a machine.
Posted by: giblfiz ![[TypeKey Profile Page]](http://www.belligerati.net/nav-commenters.gif)
at September 26, 2005 10:40 AM
Very different style is evidence they may be playing different games, but not proof, nor the only way to establish it.
Time is a crucial constraint in human chess. All humans operate at roughly one hertz, so the time constraint acts to eliminate those players who think slowly, thoroughly, and without genius. Computers, with there tremendous computational throughput, are effectively playing untimed games.
Posted by: TheOneEyedMan at September 27, 2005 8:48 AM
Post a comment
Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)
(If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.)