Even tic tac toe is a game of logic.
Is chess a game of logic?
Sort:
Yeah, I think logic is necessary, just nowhere near suffient. Logic only works when your assumptions (available info) are correct.
jen5473 wrote:
Although the number of possible collective patterns and associated possible move sequences may be
very, very large, it is finite and certainly within the memory capabilities of a computer.
Hi, Jen. A very interesting and highly intelligent post! Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the matter.
About 25 years ago, a next door neighbor showed me a book he was reading that calculated the number of possible moves and sequences in the first 20 moves of a game of chess. That number was greater than the number of atoms in the Universe. So it is unlikely that any computer can ever be built that can do all the moves of chess from start to finish like an opening encyclopedia. Not enough memory in the entire Universe.
What programmers do is “tree cutting”. They prune off the variations by a judgement of the end analysis with a position that the computer judges as plus or minus whatever. This judgement is computer programmed, but the programming is human. So human judgement goes into how much a pawn or piece is worth, etc. The computer does not calculate these positions to checkmate. So currently, no computer can ever be created to figure out chess by this method without human judgement.
The reverse has been tried with greater success. Instead of beginning with the opening, programmers began with the ending. This way certain positions are proven to be win or a draw. Mathematically or logically concluded to 100% accuracy. The Russians did that. However, when they got to the queen vs queen endings, there were still too many positions to solve. I know Mikhail Botvinnik headed that Russian team of computer scientists. Again, this was decades ago.
I do not know if any advances have been made since. It seems that human judgement is needed for any chess program to work. Seems the computer itself cannot solve chess.
Oh, and if the supercomputer cannot solve chess, what chance do we humans have?
Why people think computers, AI, etc are more intelligent then humans, why?
m86 a écrit :
Why people think computers, AI, etc are more intelligent then humans, why?
It depends of your definition of intelligence but overall, we are clearly outclassed by AI. Yes, humans are smarter than any other living creature on earth.
Dec 18, 2018
0
#88
Chess is a combination of logical scientific-type thought as well as an artistic endeavor.
I was Chief Research Chemist of Process Development for a subsidiary of Dow Chemical Corp, and some of my best synthetic processes wouldn't have been done without a sudden artistic awakening.
That included something involving the fuel for the Tomahawk Cruise Missile as well as non-carcinogenic fibers for children's flame-proof clothing.
I am not a good chess player, but I believe I can answer this question with logic.
With each move of either player, the number of next possible moves consistent with a winning final position pattern increases or decreases for the players. More importantly, the number of available move choices consistent with victory in the context of each possible position pattern (in other words, at any given point in the game) is necessarily finite due to the finite number of pieces and positions. For this reason, one could deduce that the only logical challenge posed by chess regards consistently making move choices that do not rule-out a winning final pattern in the context of the current position pattern.
The real difficulty involves remembering what moves, or new pattern creations, disallow victory as an outcome at each point in the game. With this knowledge, only the simplest logic is sufficient to ensure victory. Therefore, I agree with Wafflemaster that the unique skill of the strongest chess player entails perfect memory for patterns and sequences.
Although the number of possible collective patterns and associated possible move sequences may be very, very large, it is finite and certainly within the memory capabilities of a computer. Considering that computers are superiorly adept at memory, I was surprised to learn from a recent post within this thread that variables in addition to consistency with potential victory (such as piece values and point differentials) are considered in the move choice programming of chess computers. With perfect memory for each pattern and associated possible sequence, the computer need only make binary, rather than complicated, multivariate decisions. Then again, who would want to play such a perfectly programmed computer?
In addition to sequence/pattern recognition and simple logic, a third variable relevant to the human game regards the role of emotion. It is easy to imagine how the loss of a preferred piece, pacing, timing of threat, etc., could influence an “incorrect” move choice that otherwise might have been avoided. It therefore seems there is a bit of poker in human chess.
I invite someone to prove me wrong, because I’m a bit heartbroken by my own conclusions. I was really enjoying chess but I have no interest whatsoever in memorizing patterns without real-world meaning.