Moses2792796 wrote:
What it means is that all chess is objectively is a matrix of possibilities. Positional concepts are subjective models that humans use to describe this matrix more efficiently, but they remain inexact models not a representation of the objective reality of chess, which is a mathematical function albeit an extremely complex one. Consider the following example, when I look out of my window I see a tree in my front yard, in reality this setting consists of trillions of atoms each with its own structure arranged into molecules whose composition differentiates matter, this is arranged into biological organisms whose complexity and functions I cannot begin to imagine, but all I see is a tree and a patch of grass. This is a subjective model which reduces all of the complexity of that setting to something I can comprehend, which is adequate for my purposes. This is exactly what happens when one looks at a chess board and says, "my knight is attacked, I will move it to the center of the board to maximize the number of squares it controls". All of the unfathomable complexity of the game tree is reduced to a simple formula, and the concrete reasons for the knight being there may not be recognized yet. The computer solves the problem a completely different way, by trying to calculate through as much of the complexity as it possibly can, eventually the advantage of being able to calculate faster outweighs the advantage of not having to calculate as much, which is why computers have surpassed humans. One can see then, that it is not really a question of understanding, but simply two different approaches to a single problem. A human will try to improve efficiency by simplifying the problem, which has the disadvantage of being inexact, whereas a computer will try to be exact by maximizing calculation, which has the disadvantage of being inefficient.
That is a long winded answer, that doesnt explain why "positional" chess isnt an inherent part of the game. Positional chess is as much a part of chess as tactical play is. And this is where chess engines destroy human opponents.
Demands for evidence cuts both ways. I dont think we have a recorded result of a CC 3 day move game between a super GM and Houdini, which is what leaves open the door for kibitzing.
There is no doubt that humans become stronger relative to machines at longer time controls. The question is, is it enough?
Every day that this challenge doesn't happen, means that it is less likely to occur, at all. Next week brings what? Houdini 3? Rybka 5? each program stronger than the last....
.... and yet, the GM's don't come forward to take up the guantlet, while they still have a glimmer of a chance. One can only ponder the reasons why.
Top GMs do not have much motivation to devote large amounts of time and resources to preparing for a match against a computer. This would probably involve significant work developing strategies to beat a specific engine, I would imagine that it is still possible to do this but the fact is no one really cares anymore, you don't hear about mathematicians trying to prove that they can crunch numbers better than a calculator.
***
As far as the question of human understanding goes, people overlook a basic principle, whilst I am not much of a chess player I can see the philosophical issue here. Positional principles are a set of abstractions imposed on the basic logical framework of chess to enhance human ability, they are not inherent in the game as such but they allow humans to make calculations which would otherwise be impossible. A human doesn't 'understand' chess any more than a computer does, they just have a different way of calculating. The machine's method, while much less efficient, is more exact, hence why machine's surpass man's ability quite easily once their efficiency is improved and their calculating ability increased. They still have their weaknesses, but soon these will be too small to exploit and right now there is not much motivation for top players to try.
I'm confused about what you are trying to say? I have highlighted it in red.
How is "positional" chess not an inherent part of the game? Advanced pawns on one side of the board is an inherent part of the game (more space) Just as controlling squares is an inherent part of the game. If i am misunderstanding what you are saying my apologies, but please explain.