At some time in history all the post-docs met and decided what subjects should be classified as "OMG super nerd". And of all the possible subjects they choose cognetiv Science to be the number one on the list.
Now why would I call upon this subject to be particularly super nerdy? If you could stomach the urge to throw me in a dumpster long enought to read this through, let me explain.
Cognative Science combines all the joys of computer programing with the thrils of pyskology. In short, we try to mimic the human thought process using computers.
For my semester finale paper I was thinking to add a chapter conserning chess computers to highlight the differences between humans and computer. The only problem is, I have no idea how they work.
Obviusly I spent houres scavengeing old research papes on the subject, but to my suprise they all discused how to make them better, not what made them tic in the first place. And certianly not the differences between them and their human counter parts. The only conclution I could reach was that thatt anyone willing to write a paper on chess engines was to bussy rocking the D & D session to add a whole chapter to "human interaction".
So I have a few questions for you. And would be happy in any form of assistance.
- In the way I understand engines, a computer caluculates thousands, if not a million different moves before finding the best combination but show no bias in any direction. Meaning that the computer will start by calculating a3 regardless of the situation on the board?
- The best computers calculate up to 20 moves into the future, every time?
- Does the computer play the same moves, in the same situation all the time. Or are there room for "creativity" and trying different paths? In other words. If a GM finds a set of moves that wins one match, the player would win every match against this computer by simply doing the excactly same moves?
-Lastly. What, if any, are the advantage a human hold over the computer. I know this point makes room for speculation. But is it (theoreticaly) possible to find a way to play that is garrantied a win for the human. Or is computer supremecy come to stay?
Really? You spent hours and couldn't find anything?
Try the Chess Programming Wiki
It includes a nice recommended reading list.
/ One advantage that humans have over computers is that we can still hit the off switch.
At some time in history all the post-docs met and decided what subjects should be classified as "OMG super nerd". And of all the possible subjects they choose cognetiv Science to be the number one on the list.
Now why would I call upon this subject to be particularly super nerdy? If you could stomach the urge to throw me in a dumpster long enought to read this through, let me explain.
Cognative Science combines all the joys of computer programing with the thrils of pyskology. In short, we try to mimic the human thought process using computers.
For my semester finale paper I was thinking to add a chapter conserning chess computers to highlight the differences between humans and computer. The only problem is, I have no idea how they work.
Obviusly I spent houres scavengeing old research papes on the subject, but to my suprise they all discused how to make them better, not what made them tic in the first place. And certianly not the differences between them and their human counter parts. The only conclution I could reach was that thatt anyone willing to write a paper on chess engines was to bussy rocking the D & D session to add a whole chapter to "human interaction".
So I have a few questions for you. And would be happy in any form of assistance.
- In the way I understand engines, a computer caluculates thousands, if not a million different moves before finding the best combination but show no bias in any direction. Meaning that the computer will start by calculating a3 regardless of the situation on the board?
- The best computers calculate up to 20 moves into the future, every time?
- Does the computer play the same moves, in the same situation all the time. Or are there room for "creativity" and trying different paths? In other words. If a GM finds a set of moves that wins one match, the player would win every match against this computer by simply doing the excactly same moves?
-Lastly. What, if any, are the advantage a human hold over the computer. I know this point makes room for speculation. But is it (theoreticaly) possible to find a way to play that is garrantied a win for the human. Or is computer supremecy come to stay?