< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·
|Jul-05-05|| ||azaris: <Sneaky> More precisely 434508600510580 / 856516793531503.|
|Jul-05-05|| ||farrooj: where the hell did you get that answer <azaris>?|
|Jul-05-05|| ||Chesschatology: May I recommend Wikipedia’s entry on Hydra. It’s quite fascinating, and there are links to explain such concepts as “The minimax function” “Alpha-Beta Pruning” “Null move algorithms” etc.
Reading it has made me feel a little better about the mauling of Mickey, because some of the ideas are so ingenious. “Brute Force” is actually, it appears, a quite unfair name for a very clever little machine indeed. |
What struck me about it is that a player who REALLY studied how the algorithms worked could actually predict specific traps the computer would be likely to fall into in a far more sophisticated way then saying “Close up the position.”
- It appears that the more equally good continuations there are, the less effectively the computer can pair down its analysis tree, and therefore the fewer moves it can look ahead.
- Zugzwang type positions seem to confuse the critters.
- The fewer checks and captures available the less the tree can be pruned.
Maybe we can still beat these things by putting as much work into understanding them as the programmers have put into making them so damn strong!
|Jul-05-05|| ||csmath: <<Reading it has made me feel a little better about the mauling of Mickey, because some of the ideas are so ingenious. “Brute Force” is actually, it appears, a quite unfair name for a very clever little machine indeed.>>|
Yes, exactly. That is the point, these machines are not aliens, they were made by inteligent programmers/engineers and they are not a proof of machine dominating humans but of humans using their inteligence to develop better tools.
|Jul-05-05|| ||azaris: <farrooj> That's in fact a bit rounded. I only had Excel to use at work. Mathematica 4 does it in integer precision and gives |
38093904702297390785243708291056390518886454060947061 --- 75091883268515350125426207425223147563269805908203125
when you ask it to evaluate
1 - Product[k/365, k, 365 - 23 + 1, 365].
|Jul-05-05|| ||farrooj: I don't know how to calculate odds. Can you explain the formula a bit?|
|Jul-05-05|| ||Marvol: <OneBadDog, InfiniteWombat>
An interesting other way of looking at this problem is this:|
Suppose there are 100 doors. Bob picks one, and then Monty opens up 98 of the remaining 99.
Should Bob switch?
He obviously should!
The same maths apply to this problem although the odds change - but they still favor switching.
|Jul-05-05|| ||Pawsome: Thanks for the help<csmath> On the subject of Hydra vs. Adams, it seems to me that the lustre has worn off Man vs. Machine duels for the simple reason that the man made machines have gotten so strong that the spectacle is now akin to watching a weightlifter take on a forklift.|
|Jul-06-05|| ||InfiniteWombat: farrooj, one way to solve counting problems like sneaky's is to count the complement and then subtract it from the total number of possibilities. So instead of counting the number of ways that at least two people have the same birthday, you would count the number of ways in which no one had a birthday on the same day. In symbols you would end up with :
(365 ^ 23) - (365!/342!).
The reason for the term (365 ^ 23) is that the first person can have any one of 365 days as their birthday, and the second person can also have any of 365 days. This yields 365 ^ 2 possibilities for the first two people. Continuing this reasoning, after 23 people there will be 365^23 total possibilities.
The (365!/342!) term represents the total number of ways in which no two people can share a birthday. The first person can have their birthday on any of 365 days. However, the second person can't have a birthday on the same day as the first person, so they only have 364 possible birthdays. This gives 365 * 364 total ways in which two people can have birthdays on different days. Continuing this idea, we end up with (365 * 364 ... * 343) total ways in which 23 people can have mutually exclusive birthdays. (365!/342!) is just a nice shorthand for the previous product.
Since you want to express this as a probability from 0 to 1, you divide by the total number of possibilities, giving you :
1 - ( 365! / (342! * (365 ^ 23)) )
|Jul-06-05|| ||farrooj: thanks InfiniteWombat|
|Jul-06-05|| ||InfiniteWombat: No problem farrooj. Hope that made some sense.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||PARACONT1: I am sick of being let down by British players.
Staunton avoids Morphy;
Blackburne got crushed by Steinitz 0-7;
Keene 'retired' when he could have been great;
Nunn's promise unfulfilled;
Miles got involved in money squabbles instead of focussing on chess;
Short got crushed even worse than Blackburne, and then caused the present disunity in the chess world;
Adams - oh well, we all know about this chap;
Next? McShane will let us down in some way too I'm sure.
In fact the only British players who didn't let us down was Alexander and Botteril (helped in the war effort) and Thomas (wisely shifted focus to badminton and became champ)
|Jul-07-05|| ||Dirk Diggler: Such a negative fellow. The Brits only really started to push for more GMs in the 70s, and they rapidly developed a bunch of good players. Some of them are prolific authors.|
Your name sounds Italian. How many world class players have you seen?
|Jul-07-05|| ||PARACONT1: <Dirk Diggler the Anti Italian> Ruy Lopez and Mariotti to name 2. Both WORLD famous.|
|Jul-07-05|| ||sneaky pete: <PARACONT1> Hey man, don't forget my secret hero, the, like, immortal Serafino Dubois. Totally!|
|Aug-16-05|| ||LIFE Master AJ: I think the post by <paraconti> was supposed to be humorous ... although I could be mistaken. (Friends say I have no sense of humor, and I have never laughed once in my whole life.)|
|Aug-16-05|| ||aw1988: They aren't wrong...|
|Aug-16-05|| ||Assassinater: <Short got crushed even worse than Blackburne>|
How is -6 +1 =13 (I think it's 13 draws) worse than -7 =0? Anyways, being crushed by Kasparov is hardly anything to be ashamed of. It's not like people are saying that Anand is crap because of his match with Kasparov...
|Aug-16-05|| ||hayton3: <LIFE Master AJ> More like your acquaintances.|
|Jul-31-07|| ||MJW 72: I think that the results for the humans would be much better if the compy makers offered money to people who would care about it. The human would study a lot and his playing strength would go way up. The compy would be unable to win a lot. 95% of games would end in draws however.|
|Jul-31-07|| ||Whitehat1963: <MJW> You're dreaming. Human dominance in chess is officially over.|
|Jul-31-07|| ||MJW 72: Well the only thing that might be totally unstoppable would be Rybrka on Hydra's hardware with the kinks worked out by chessbase. That won't happen for some time.|
|Jul-31-07|| ||MJW 72: Scatch that. It would be unstoppable. Everything else is likly barely stopable.|
|Aug-01-07|| ||Whitehat1963: <Everything else is likly barely stopable.> You might want to ask Kramnik his opinion about the lowly Fritz 10.|
|Nov-09-07|| ||m0nkee1: Edward Nemeth plays nicley against computers.. some of his games look almost romantic.. Alpha beta pruning can be fooled by a series of sacrifices. - the computer doesn't expect you to deliberatley loose material - so if you make a move which does this it has to start calculating a fresh... precarious playing style tho...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 22 OF 22 ·