Koki on 12/6/2010 at 06:34
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
But you can spend 10+ years playing full time, and you will still not have mastered everything there is in chess.
One could say same thing about Starcraft.
Eldron on 12/6/2010 at 08:51
Except chess is predictable enough to have an AI beat even the best of players, while impossible to do for starcraft :)
Vernon on 12/6/2010 at 09:54
Quote Posted by Eldron
Except chess is predictable enough to have an AI beat even the best of players, while impossible to do for starcraft :)
Predictable isn't the correct word and this isn't strictly true anyway - computers can't just beat the best strategic players outright, even though they can create absolutely mortifying tactical manouevres at the drop of a hat. That's why they can almost always 'think' their way out of traps (as opposed to the old chess engine method of using anti-trap books), but not beat convoluted long-term positions as easily.
If as much programming had gone into making a Starcraft AI as has gone into making autonomous Chess devices over the years, I don't think you'd be able to jump to the same conclusion
Eldron on 12/6/2010 at 10:49
Quote Posted by Vernon
Predictable isn't the correct word and this isn't strictly true anyway - computers can't just beat the best strategic players outright, even though they can create absolutely mortifying tactical manouevres at the drop of a hat. That's why they can almost always 'think' their way out of traps (as opposed to the old chess engine method of using anti-trap books), but not beat convoluted long-term positions as easily.
If as much programming had gone into making a Starcraft AI as has gone into making autonomous Chess devices over the years, I don't think you'd be able to jump to the same conclusion
You probably know more about that than I do, I was mostly speaking about it in a half serious way, but it seems that many competitive computer games have a certain degree of element where you'll be needing a human way of thinking.
In Go for example, which just boils down to each player just having one unmovable piece to place, it seems to be much more complicated to write an AI that can compete with any good player.
While If we had a competitive game of math between two players, it would still be a competition, but the computer would run through those computers-specific problems in the blink of an eye.
Now there isn't a lesser game of any of the, chess, a math problem, or starcraft games, they're just games in the end, which people hopefully have fun playing.
Gryzemuis on 12/6/2010 at 11:45
Quote Posted by ZylonBane
It's very clear to me that your reading comprehension sucks.
Why ? I didn't see anyone here talk about chess indicating they have played more than just a few friendly games ? If I misjudged someone, then I'm sorry.
What do you prefer in the Sicilian defense ? The Dragon or the Najdorf ? And when your 1.e4 is answered with 1...e5 what do you play ? Ruy Lopez like most GMs ? Or do you have the balls to play the King's Gambit ? And do you play 3.Bc4 or 3.Nf3 in the King's Gambit ?
Questions like that are like discussing whether you prefer the ASMD or the Flak Cannon in Unreal Tournament. In fact, a question like 3.Bc4 or 3.Nf3 goes even deeper than that. And your average serious chessplayer will not ridicule such a question. Just like a Thief player that refuses to use the Black Jack is taken serious on these forums.
I don't feel any immersion when I play chess. I am myself. When I play chess, I play a game that requires thinking. Not one that requires reflexes. Or great control over my fingers/mouse/keyboard. I like immersion in computer games, feeling like I am in another world. With chess I don't need that, don't even want that. But when I play Tetris or Desktop Tower Defense, I get bored a lot quicker than with chess or playing an first-person or third-person game.
I don't play much chess anymore myself. I appreciate the game. But I don'thave the urge to play matches. Somehow it has lost some of its attraction for me. I don't enjoy playing against a computer at all. Never did. They are too good. And a victory means nothing. When you play against a human being, you should play against someone of equal skill. If the difference is too big, it's no fun. When playing an online shooter against very good players, you can still have fun, even when you get slaughtered. You can hide or camp, spam rockets or grenades, and get a few lucky kills. You play in a team. You still can do something useful, even if you suck at Quake or CS. But when you play against a chessplayer with 300 more elorating, you will just lose. No fun. The differences between chessplayers is much higher, and much more predictable than in many videogames. (Yeah, I guess a very good Starcraft or Quake player will always kick my ass. Always. But in many games, the underdog can still have some fun, and have some mini-successes).
I liked this thread more when it was about videogames. I'm sorry I mentioned chess.
Vernon on 12/6/2010 at 11:45
Quote:
it seems that many competitive computer games have a certain degree of element where you'll be needing a human way of thinking.
I agree. By the same token, I don't think many people want to play things that computers would excel at, mainly because it would be mind-shatteringly boring.
Gryzemuis on 12/6/2010 at 11:50
Quote Posted by Eldron
In Go for example, which just boils down to each player just having one unmovable piece to place, it seems to be much more complicated to write an AI that can compete with any good player.
I've been told that the difference between chess and Go regarding computer AI is in the endgame. With chess, the more moves you play, the more pieces will be removed from the board. Which reduces the complexity. So in the search-trees that are explored by the AI, the trees get less broad in chess. Which allows for deeper searches. With Go it is the opposite. The game starts simple. But the amount of possible moves only increases towards the end. Which makes it harder and harder to go deeper into the search-trees.
ZylonBane on 12/6/2010 at 20:42
Quote Posted by LittleFlower
Why ? I didn't see anyone here talk about chess indicating they have played more than just a few friendly games ?
You also don't see anything here indicating they HAVEN'T played more than a few games. So you made one hell of an assumption.
And I'm the one who brought up chess, not you.
Queue on 13/6/2010 at 12:25
I'll bring up Chutes and Ladders before anyone else, just in case.
steo on 14/6/2010 at 21:47
And they've yet to program a computer to reliably beat human opponents without cheating, unlike chess which is clearly a kiddies game.
