Re: The Human Factor
From: William Hale (hale_at_tulane.edu)
Date: 09/13/04
- Next message: Rainer Rosenthal: "Re: A simple question about integers"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: A simple question about integers"
- In reply to: Guy Macon: "The Human Factor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2004 11:26:06 -0500
In article <10kaut5sorptrfd@news.supernews.com>, Guy Macon
<http://www.guymacon.com> wrote:
$ I am posting this page because I think it is interesting.
$ Please do NOT assume that I agree or disagree just because
$ I posted it. I have an opinion, but would like to see what
$ others think before weighing in. BTW, the rest on the
$ http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/ site is well worth
$ looking at.
$ -Guy Macon.
$
$ ----------------------------------------------------------
$
$ Game Theory 4: The Human Factor
$ By Paul Cox
$ http://members.cox.net/mathmistakes/chess.htm
[cut]
$ Hidden behind all of the man vs. machine debate is a deep
$ irony that is not really being reported. All four of these
$ computer programs (Chessmaster and the three Deeps) have
$ achieved Grandmaster status not by brute force analysis of
$ all game possibilities, but by simulating human behavior.
I thought it was well-known that these programs do not
do brute force analysis of *all* game possibilities, much
less that it was hidden.
[cut]
$ As I stated in part 1 of the game theory series, Chess is a
$ two-player, non random, perfect knowledge game. As a result,
$ it should have an ideal strategy that will result in either
$ a win or a draw every time. So, far this strategy has proven
$ very elusive, with the computers no closer to finding it
$ than the humans.
That strategy has not been proven elusive. In fact, it was
known in the 1940's, if not earlier. It is the well-known
max-min strategy. And you can throw in alpha-beta pruning
to speed it up a lot. It is not difficult to program such
a strategy.
[cut]
$ Computers, on the other hand, are only as smart as the
$ program they are running. The smartest computer players
$ imitate humans only without the random mistakes. This makes
$ the computers predictable, and since recognizing patterns is
$ something we humans do instinctually, computers are often
$ defeated in games of skill.
The above is not very precise. You might want to look
up information on the backgammon program TD-GAMMON that
uses temporal differences to learn the winning patterns
in backgammon.
-- Bill Hale
- Next message: Rainer Rosenthal: "Re: A simple question about integers"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: A simple question about integers"
- In reply to: Guy Macon: "The Human Factor"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
