Hello, Could someone help me understand [in layman's terms] the different challenges involved in programming AI for Chess as opposed to Go?
For example, I'm looking at : Friction in Human-Computer Symbiosis: Kasparov on Chess http://blog.palantirtech.com/2010/03/08/friction-in-human-computer-symbiosis-kasparov-on-chess/ I got into a brief and very informal dialogue with Andy McAfee [1] at PNL in DC last month: In the Age of the Smart Machine, What are WE Good For? http://andrewmcafee.org/2010/06/in-the-age-of-the-smart-machine-what-are-we-good-for/ :: [The early triumphs of the Artificial Intelligence movement, and its later disappointments Moravec’s Paradox The astonishing advances over time in computing power per $ What will happen if computers ever do get smart (I illustrated my most likely scenarios with images from Terminator, I, Robot, Battlestar Galactica, and The Matrix) The State of the Art with machine translation and machine chess Human intuition vs. algorithmic prediction` How human creativity can be buttressed by machine support Quotes from Isaac Asimov, Steven Pinker, Norbert Weiner, and others.] We had a very interesting chat - & so my question is - >> why is Go so much harder a gamespace for a machine to master than chess? As a novice student of political strategy [not a computer scientist! - but grand strategy through to tactical counter terror tactics] i'm interested in chess vs go as a learning metaphor. for analysts. If you are inclined towards U.S. conservative thought, for example, consider RAND in this context : Networks and Netwar: The Future of Terror, Crime and Militancy http://www.fathom.com/course/21701735/session1.html "...These propositions cut across the entire conflict spectrum. Major transformations are thus coming in the nature of adversaries, in the type of threats they may pose and in how conflicts can be waged. Information-age threats are likely to be more diffuse, dispersed, multidimensional nonlinear and ambiguous than industrial-age threats. Metaphorically, then, future conflicts may resemble the Oriental game of Go more than the Western game of chess. The conflict spectrum will be remolded from end to end by these dynamics...." If you are more comfortable with Critical Theory consider D&G's nomadology: http://www.socialfiction.org/?n=760 "....Gilles Deleuze on Chess and Go - Posted: 05.Jun.2007. In horror I quote from larvalsubjects what D&G had to say: Let us take a limited example and compare the war machine and the State apparatus in the context of the theory of games. let us take chess and Go, from the standpoint of the game pieces, the relations between the pieces and the space involved. Chess is a game of State, or of the court: the emperor of China played it. Chess pieces are coded; they have an internal nature and intrinsic properties from which their movements, situations, and confrontations derive. They have qualities; a knight remains a knight, a pawn a pawn, a bishop a bishop. Each is like a subject of the statement endowed with a relative power, and these relative powers combine in a subject of enunciation, that is, the chess player or the game’s form of interiority. Go pieces, in contrast, are pellets, disks, simple arithmetic units, and have only an anonymous, collective, or third-person function: ‘It’ makes a move. ‘It’ could be a man, a woman, a louse, an elephant. Go pieces are elements of a nonsubjectified machine assemblage with no intrinsic properties, only situational ones. Thus the relations are very different in the two cases. Within their milieu of interiority, chess pieces entertain biunivocal relations with one another, and with the adversary’s pieces: their functioning is structural. On the other hand, a Go piece has only a milieu of exteriority, or extrinsic relations with nebulas or constellations as bordering, encircling, shattering. All by itself, a Go piece can destroy an entire constellation synchronically; a chess piece cannot (or can do so diachronically only. (A Thousand Plateaus, 352) Tags: chess boardgames deleuze quotes go philosophy war" Whatever, but could someone on this listserv help me understand [in layman's terms] the different challenges involved in programming AI for Chess as opposed to Go? All the best, Greg [1] http://blogs.hbr.org/hbr/mcafee/ Andrew McAfee is principal research scientist at the Center for Digital Business in the MIT Sloan School of Management. He is the author of Enterprise 2.0. _______________________________________________ Computer-go mailing list [email protected] http://dvandva.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/computer-go
