Chess : science or art?

 Just because a machine can beat a human doesn't make it a science. Machines can carve stone with more precision than a human can, does that make sculpting a science?

While it's true that computers win matches against top players, that's hardly an argument that it's science, there are still aspects of the game that the computers fail to grasp as well as human does, and (good) players are more adept at finding deep positional ideas that the computer can't with it's algorithmic look upon chess.

As a Chess Correspondance world champion once said.

Fritz > me

Me and fritz > Fritz

chess is both and anywone agrees that it is !

 if you don't mind my saying, we should be able to discuss/ exchange ideas/make contributions without being subjected to sarcastic abuse, but maybe i am an idealist.

 ok maybe you were just exhibiting rhetorical skills like Cicero and other great Greek orators did. Rugged individualists, to use your modest self assessment, are always welcome !

My point is that anything in life can be determined, predicted or calculated if we had all the information and ultimately art itself is a very subjective thing.  If a program put paint on paper and made a nice picture and I really liked it would it be any less art?  Does art come from the artist or does it come from the person experiencing it?

So I don't really see how to get around these sort of subjective arguments.  I don't particularly like them either, but how else can you approach the problem?

Computers crunch numbers for great moves, but humans play in a very different way.  How was it that Kasparov beat Deep Blue when it was his handful of moves per second vs the computer's millions of moves per second?  Humans, even very weak ones, must rely on some sort of process other than calculation to illuminate good moves for us to consider.  This leads to surprising and sometimes purely intuitive moves that are very strong.

To create order within a complex framework, even if such order can be derived by a higher intelligence or, in the case of chess, mindless number crunching (be it writing, painting, music or chess) is emotionally and intellectually stimulating.  Maybe this is how I would describe art. 

For what it's worth, this is my argument.  It's too bad this is ultimately a subjective experience.  I would say though the problem is not in the (or my) argument itself, but is implicit in the question when it mentions art.

To me chess is both art and science.

I forget the exact quote but here goes: "Chess is a river from which a gnat may drink or an elephant may swim."

I'm going to play devil's advocate.

"My point is that anything in life can be determined, predicted or calculated if we had all the information and ultimately art itself is a very subjective thing."

Not everything. If we were to create a machine to randomly select a number between 0 and 1 centillion, with all the information available to us, we would not be able to predict the 1,742nd random number that would come out. I think science has to be limited in its definition to prevent most things from being applied to it. 

"If a program put paint on paper and made a nice picture and I really liked it would it be any less art?"

Is it possible to create a program that can paint on its own free will and make something that in a reasonable way resembles a human-type painting? I don't think it is, and if it is possible, then I would say that the program is human (in its ability to paint). If we were to make a program paint what we instruct it to paint then it would really be us who are the painters and it would be our painting.

"Computers crunch numbers for great moves, but humans play in a very different way.  How was it that Kasparov beat Deep Blue when it was his handful of moves per second vs the computer's millions of moves per second?  Humans, even very weak ones, must rely on some sort of process other than calculation to illuminate good moves for us to consider.  This leads to surprising and sometimes purely intuitive moves that are very strong."

A limited number of people are into chess. If 99.9% of people were into chess then we would have (probably reasonable to say) computers that would be stronger than the ones we currently have with a lot less weaknesses. The weakness of today's computers, if I am correct, is their planning because they are very tactical. We have failed to make computers that do not have this weakness and this is part of the reason humans can still beat computer. As for intuitive, it's the GMs that have good intuition because they have seen millions of chess positions and can quickly find the moves that worked in the past. Take a beginner, and he has virtually 0% chance of winning against the strongest chess computer. In other words, it's might be more than intuition.

How did Kasparov beat Deep Blue when he could only calculate a handful of moves per second? By only calculating a handful of moves, because that's all that is needed in this game: to calculate 2 to 5 moves and pick the right one. In this board game, very often, you can automatically dismiss tens of moves in many many ways. For example: GMs may not want to bring out their queen early in the game, may not want to give up their queen for a pawn, bishop, knight, or rook, not move their king preventing them from castling, and etc. After all of this, you are left with a few moves you need to look at to see which one is best, considering your opponents plan, your plan, your opponent's position (afterwards) and you position (afterwards).

music!!!!

2 pt font waffllemaster
3 pt font Samurai-X
4 pt font (normal font) my new comments.

My point is that anything in life can be determined, predicted or calculated if we had all the information and ultimately art itself is a very subjective thing."

Not everything. If we were to create a machine to randomly select a number between 0 and 1 centillion, with all the information available to us, we would not be able to predict the 1,742nd random number that would come out. I think science has to be limited in its definition to prevent most things from being applied to it.

Ok not literally everything :)  My point was more specifically that other areas which are taken as granted as art can also be reduced to calculations.

-----------------------------------------

"If a program put paint on paper and made a nice picture and I really liked it would it be any less art?"

Is it possible to create a program that can point on its own free will and make something that in a reasonable way resembles a human-type painting? I don't think it is, and if it is possible, then I would say that the program is human (in its ability to paint). If we were to make a program paint what we instruct it to pain then it would really be us who are the painters and it would be our painting.

I thought they had created such programs actually.  And perhaps the music and paintings they create are not on par with what we consider the greats, but again my more specific point is that art itself is subjective and so although ChessStrategist disliked the subjective nature of the arguments, that it is implicit in the subject itself (as I said in the end).

If I learn art from a teacher and create a painting am I the artist or the one who taught me?  Original art is thought to be too abstract for a computer to freely create though the same sentiment could have been attributed to chess 100 years ago.  I don't think it's incorrect to assume the possibility for such a program exists.

-----------------------------------------

"Computers crunch numbers for great moves, but humans play in a very different way.  How was it that Kasparov beat Deep Blue when it was his handful of moves per second vs the computer's millions of moves per second?  Humans, even very weak ones, must rely on some sort of process other than calculation to illuminate good moves for us to consider.  This leads to surprising and sometimes purely intuitive moves that are very strong."

A limited number of people are into chess. If 99.9% of people were into chess then we would have (probably reasonable to say) computers that would be stronger than the ones we currently have with a lot less weaknesses. The weakness of today's computers, if I am correct, is their planning because they are very tactical. We have failed to make computers that do not have this weakness and this is part of the reason humans can still beat computer. As for intuitive, it's the GMs that have good intuition because they have seen millions of chess positions and can quickly find the moves that worked in the past. Take a beginner, and he has virtually 0% chance of winning against the strongest chess computer. In other words, it's might be more than intuition.

This is a good point.  It's not just intuition, it's cold hard facts gleaned from the board and years of study and more times than not validated through cold hard calculation.  More specifically though my point was that when creating order within a complex framework brings a smile to someones face (stimulating both intellect and emotion) that is what I would lable as art.  And although a chess player uses as his tools cold hard reasoning to produce moves, the ultimately unknowable nature of a moves value reduces move selection to best guesses.  Because of this I don't think you can call chess purely a science.  There are so many moves to ignore in calculation (hundreds of millions per move per game) that even the best trained and most experienced players must go out on a limb again and again.  If it were otherwise I think chess would have faded away hundreds of years ago.

-----------------------------------------

How did Kasparov beat Deep Blue when he could only calculate a handful of moves per second? By only calculating a handful of moves, because that's all that is needed in this game: to calculate 2 to 5 moves and pick the right own. In this board game, very often, you can automatically dismiss tens of moves in many many ways. For example: GMs may not want to bring out their queen early in the game, may not want to give up their queen for a pawn, bishop, knight, or rook, not move their king preventing them from castling, and etc. After all of this, you are left with a few moves you need to look at to see which one is best, considering your opponents plan, your plan, your opponent's position (afterwards) and you position (afterwards).

Again I believe the number of moves you have to ignore are so great, that even the best players must speculate from time to time.  Even a human+computer pair cannot avoid losing a game from time to time and creating order under such a framework is as much art as science.  Much in the same way we consider it impossible to program great paintings or music due to the complexity.

This is ridiculous.  Of course we could predict the machine's 1742nd number if we had ALL the information available.  

The reason why Kasparov beat Deep Blue was not an inherent flaw in the general superior abilities of a computer to beat down a human in anything, but because Deep Blue was a relatively weaker computer.  Today, Kasparov would get smoked by Hydra or some new supercomputer if someone created it. 

As far as "planning", the only reason Kasparov uses intuition is because he is incapable of calculating 2,000,000 lines per second.  That is the whole reason why tactics win over strategy when a tactical solution is recognized.   

Time and progress have proven that if a computer gets a little faster and can see a little further, it becomes pretty doggone hard to beat...recently proven with Jeopardy.

And these are changes over less than 1 generation.   

As far as who or what "made" the computer, that is all semantics and completely irrelevant.  Garry Kasparov's mother is not better than Garry Kasparov at chess even though she instilled in him the work ethic and materials needed for him to be a world beater.  

We need to get over it...the dumb@rse phrase "computers are not smarter than people" can finally be put to rest.  It is only a matter of time in any category, including "art".

Anything a person can do, a computer can do far better, faster, and more accurately, if not now then in the near future and that includes painting and music.  Pretty soon computers will be self-sustaining, self-initiating, "creative", and will be far better equipped to preserve and adapt their "species" than we humans are capable of doing.  There are elements of higher-order thinking that computers are not YET capable of performing, but to say that it will NEVER happen is pure hubris...1 generation.   

The thing is that we can easily build a machine that could beat any human at golf, billiards, or probably baseball for that matter.  Chess is no different, just because we can build a computer that can outplay us does not really deminish the game for humans.

Main thing to come of this discussion is that the difference between 'science' in an abstract sense, and 'art' in an abstract sense, is very blurred and rather meaningless when you try to apply the concepts to real-life activities such as chess.

 I correct myself here : Cicero was of course a Roman philosopher, not an orator.

Whoops!

 Oooh!  That gives me a new thread idea!

Cicero:  Philosopher or Orator?

 Don't tempt me!!!!!