It understands nothing about chess. It can calculate way beyond any human and that is it.>

I did not say that it was the computer that had the understanding, but instead a strength that our understanding can not match.

However, except for the obvious - that a computer has no conscience and can not "understand" in a human way - a chess engine does pretty much what humans do: it calculates and evaluates each position from some subjective parameters.

When we humans "understand" a position, we will base that on some quick calculations and on the positional factors on the board like weak king, bishop pair, pawn structures etc.

This is exactly what an engine does.

The positional factors we (and the engines) consider is simply a way to "cheat" since we can not calculate a position to the end. An imaginary quantum computer or a super human that could calculate all the way to the bottom would simply not need any positional help.

If you follow computer chess you will often find that the engines play "anti-positional" moves that no human would ever consider. They can do this because their deep calculation trumps the short term positional disadvantages for long term advantages, positional or material. Take a look at TCEC and see how much the modern engines respect king safety. Not even a Morozevich on vodka would play like this.

As humans, we will <not understand> such position, although we may feel pretty confident about it, and will evaluate it totally wrong.

I would argue that a computer "understands" (in a non-conscience way) such a position way better than even the strongest GM.

< [...] Have they (computers) understood this one yet.

Black to play.

[Diagram]

Black played 45...Qb6 (No computer would play this and every computer would give taking the Queen - with a check. It's top choice. How long after 46.Nxb6+ cxb6 does it take for it to realise it cannot win - or has it found a way after 46.Nxb6+ to win it.)

It was a puzzle on here and humans who got it understood the position right away. To get it the thing will have to calculate, it does not understand what is going on.>

Detecting fortress-like positions is a piece of cake for modern engines, but this functionality is deliberately dropped from the eval routine in a perfect form because it slows down the calculations. Remember, this piece of quite sophisticated code has to run on each of the hundreds of millions of calculations it performs for each move on the board. Tests has showed that an engine with this is ability will play weaker although it has a better eval routine.

I agree with you except in any comparison between computers playing chess and humans playing chess.

They are two different games.(I use the term 'games' in a loose sense. A computer does not know it is playing a game.)

Computer chess is a science. it is not a game. They are calculating not to win a game but to solve an algorithm.

Human Chess is a game adding dozens of factors a computer will never be able to grasp.

Humans blunder and win games. a human will knowingly play not the best move to set OTB problems for their opponent to solve. This is something a machine could never do. It has to play what it considers is the best move all the time and every time.

Human v human games gives us thousands of examples of lost games spun into a win because the losing player tricks and traps his way out of a lost game in a complicated position. A computer does not know what a complicated position is.

A computer would never play a Tal like sacrifice even if the difference is only 0.01 in favour of the non sacrificial move and the 2nd choice sac sets unfathomable variations for the human opponent to solve OTB.

They have no intuition which a very important part of human players make up.

Yes the top computers can beat humans but they would lose the vast majority of games where a player has had to resort to tricks and traps and counterplay to save or even win a game.

For ex see this game, Houdini sacrifices 3 pawns for initiative Rybka vs Houdini, 2011

<Sally Simpson: ...

They are calculating not to win a game but to solve an algorithm. ...>

They do not <solve an algorithm>. An algorithm is a procedure to solve a problem.

<They have no intuition which a very important part of human players make up.>

Well, <intuition> or <speculation>? Rather the latter,I suppose, as you pointed out <Humans blunder and win games. a human will knowingly play not the best move to set OTB problems for their opponent to solve.>

Aside from a few types of blocked position pawn structures, the computers have won. They've also conquered checkers, poker, backgammon and maybe even Go, considered the last bastion of human dominance in gaming.

I thought I had it right, the problem is the actual game and the computer has to solve it. But they are not playing a game.

It has no will to win, it fears not losing. It just calculates.

Intuition (to me) is when your gut is telling you to play a move and you cannot because you are human work out all the ramifications. You just know it wins. A computer could never play such a move. It has to work it out first.

Hi HeMateMe,

Yes good players expect the best reply but when losing you have to play to get them to blunder. The hardest thing to win is a won game against a player who just won't go down. That is irritating.

It has no will to win, it fears not losing. It just calculates. ...>

It uses an algorithm and picks the best *solution* according to his evaluation function. And it just *hopes* this produces a win. Which today it does constantly against 98% of players.

I don't think it hopes. They usually have it all worked out. Hope chess is a human trait.

Another lad mentioned: "Houdini sacrifices 3 pawns for initiative."

A computer does not know what the initiative is. That is us putting human thinking into the play of a machine.

HeMateMe thinks Tal would love this era.

Then we recall the Tal quote.

"You must take your opponent into a deep dark forest where 2+2=5, and the path leading out is only wide enough for one."

2+2=5 will never compute.

Talking programming is beyond my pay grade, but let me take a shot at this. I think it'd be rather simple to program a little subroutine to play a sub-optimal move based on the resulting position. Something like:

More Human Than Human

Stockfish vs Jonny, 2014

click for larger view

Komodo-10-64bit:

+0.30/40 22.Nac4 Kg8 23.Qa3 f6 24.Nf3 Nd3 25.Rfc1 Nxc1 26.Rxc1 Nb4 27.Ne1 g6 28.Nxc2 Nxc2 29.Rxc2 Kg7 30.g3 Rhd8 31.h3 Rd7 32.Ra2 Ra8 33.Nb2 Qc1+ 34.Kh2 Rb7 35.Nd3 Qxa3 36.Rxa3 Rb5 37.Nc5 Kf7 38.Kg2 Ke7 39.Ra4 Rb4 40.Ra1 Kd6 41.Kf3 Kd5 42.Kf4 h6 43.Ra2 Rbb8 44.h4 Rb4 45.g4 g5+ 46.hxg5 fxg5+ 47.Kg3 Rbb8

Thanks for the link, seen it before, still as unimpressed now as I was then. I see they made it GOTD. What's next? 'Sportsman of the Year.'

Here:

Substitute 'song. for 'game.'

Even the most primitive computer possesses knowledge. Actually anything connected with some kind of explicit or implicit database does.

Just as easy is the answer whether a computer is conscious - a clear "no".

With intelligence, there are debates. I'm on the "yes" side, because most of the "no" arguments IMO mix it up with consciousness. Intelligence is the ability to perform some tasks for which we humans require thinking. It is not necessarily being aware of that ability (after all, already the word "aware" suggests consciousness). In this sense, computers are intelligent, though their intelligence is specific, not general (IBM's Watson may be the first step towards general intelligence).

The pyramid is this:

Knowledge < specific intelligence < general intelligence < consciousness.

Each "bigger" part cannot exist if the smaller part is absent. Chess computers are on the specific intelligence level. Modern computer technology generally somewhere in between specific and general intelligence.

Anyway, humans have access to a really pretty good assortment of tools to operate.