A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

    No problem Sid. Is your PhD in Physics? I wasn't able to confirm for sure looking on-line. Kudos for getting the PhD. I only got as far as earning my Masters before deciding that a PhD was not in the cards for me. Academia had little appeal for me at that level.

    I would assume that Dirac's Equation is equally applicable to pilot wave theory, although I have not researched it. Of course general relativity still remains the key problem. As to faster than light speeds, given what we have learned regarding inflation, non-local affects and FTL speeds all appear possible.

    I especially like Pilot theory, because it removes the need for an observer and the "collapse of the wave function". The Schrodinger's cat paradox goes away.

    Comment


    • #62
      Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

      Originally posted by Garland Best View Post
      No problem Sid. Is your PhD in Physics? I wasn't able to confirm for sure looking on-line. Kudos for getting the PhD. I only got as far as earning my Masters before deciding that a PhD was not in the cards for me. Academia had little appeal for me at that level.

      I would assume that Dirac's Equation is equally applicable to pilot wave theory, although I have not researched it. Of course general relativity still remains the key problem. As to faster than light speeds, given what we have learned regarding inflation, non-local affects and FTL speeds all appear possible.

      I especially like Pilot theory, because it removes the need for an observer and the "collapse of the wave function". The Schrodinger's cat paradox goes away.
      I wish I did have a PHD in physics. It was my minor when I got my undergrad degree in molecular genetics (Biology) at the U of A in 1984. I did have offers to continue on to grad school but wanted to get back into the real world. I enjoy reading about physics as a hobby. In my post I was trying to say besides lay people like myself physicists seemed to have made the same error. Some years ago they did variations of the double slit experiments that many believed disproved the pilot wave theory but more recent experiments have helped put those objections to rest.

      Comment


      • #63
        Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

        In my opinion the Rudolph position cited by Frederic Friedel on the ChessBase website is much better evidence for Penrose's thesis. As noted by several readers here, the top chess programs can *play* the Penrose position correctly, even though their numeric assessments favour Black. But none of my programs will play the Rudolph position correctly. As noted by Friedel, this is partly because the correct line involves the immediate loss of even more material. The programs do not understand the concept of a total blockade, which I take to be Penrose's thesis. They all insist that Black is winning easily and their moves reflect this.
        Last edited by Dan Scoones; Tuesday, 21st March, 2017, 11:53 AM.

        Comment


        • #64
          Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

          A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

          March 20, 2017

          The Rudolph Position

          The Chess Amateur 1912




          6n1/3Rp3/rrNp1p1p/bkp1P1pP/1p1P1PP1/p1P5/PP2K3/3B4 w - - 0 1

          White to play and draw

          1.Ba4+ Kxa4 ( 1...Kc4 2.Bb3+ ) 2.b3+ Kb5 3.c4+ Kxc6 4.d5+ Kxd7 5.e6+ Kc7 6.f5 1/2-1/2

          Frederic Friedel - Back in March 1992 I published the following study in a computer magazine, as a challenge for any machine to get it right.

          Fritz & co. display an eight-pawn disadvantage for White. The correct first move is to sacrifice even more material, which is the only way to secure a draw. This is a much more relevant test, as chess engines, playing the white side, will actually select the wrong strategy and lose the game. In the Penrose position computers with "think that White is losing", but they will hold the draw without any problem (I say this without having tested older engines and trying to entice them into capturing a rook and losing the game).

          This little recreational pastime of taking the mickey out of chess playing computers has a long history, which will be told at a later stage. I must admit: it is getting harder and harder as these things get stronger and stronger.

          http://en.chessbase.com/post/a-chess...-consciousness

          Comment


          • #65
            Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

            Even the modern engines stuggle with that one. First, they misevaluate the position as winning for black and, more importantly, they can't find the right sequence of moves.

            THIS is a position that's easy to solve for a human, but still impossible for chess engines. I guess you would have to go to around 100 plys for the 50 moves rule to come within the horizon of the engine. And even then, the engine might have pruned out the right variation at the beginning. Which means it would become literally impossible for that engine to solve the problem.

            Maybe Houdini would fare better with its Monte Carlo search and a freaking huge supercomputer. But I'll believe it when I see it.
            Last edited by Mathieu Cloutier; Monday, 20th March, 2017, 07:33 PM.

            Comment


            • #66
              Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

              Kind of reminds me of a game I played long ago against an Alekhine's Defence player. After I won, thanks to an extra pawn, in the post-mortem every other word my opponent said was "blockade" - but he never did succeed in doing so, by the time the analysis was done. :)
              Anything that can go wrong will go wrong.
              Murphy's law, by Edward A. Murphy Jr., USAF, Aerospace Engineer

              Comment


              • #67
                Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                Originally posted by Kevin Pacey View Post
                Kind of reminds me of a game I played long ago against an Alekhine's Defence player. After I won, thanks to an extra pawn, in the post-mortem every other word my opponent said was "blockade" - but he never did succeed in doing so, by the time the analysis was done. :)
                It sounds to me like he grabbed the wrong knight on move one.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                  A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                  March 21, 2017

                  Frederic Friedel continues his discussion of knowledge vs brute force with chess engines:

                  http://en.chessbase.com/post/compute...vs-brute-force

                  He analyzes the game David Levy vs Chess 4.8 from an exhibition game in 1979:

                  Hamburg, Germany
                  Round 1, Feb. 7, 1979
                  Levy, David – Chess 4.8
                  C37 King’s Gambit Accepted, Rosentreter Gambit

                  1.e4 e5 2.f4 exf4 3.Nf3 g5 4.d4 g4 5.Bxf4 gxf3 6.Qxf3 Nc6 7.d5 Qf6 8.dxc6 Qxb2 9.Bc4 Qxa1 10.Bxf7+ Kd8 11.O-O Qg7 12.Bd5 Bc5+ 13.Be3 Bxe3+ 14.Qxe3 dxc6 15.Rf7 Qh6 16.Qd4 cxd5 17.Qxh8 Qb6+ 18.Kf1 Qxb1+ 19.Kf2 Qxc2+ 20.Kg3 Qd3+ 21.Rf3 Qxe4 22.Qxg8+ Kd7 23.Qg7+ Kc6 24.Rc3+ Kb5 25.Rb3+ Ka4 26.Qc3 Qg4+ 27.Kf2 Qc4 28.Ra3+ Kb5 29.Qa5+ Kc6 30.Rc3 Be6 31.Qa4+ Kd6 32.Rxc4 dxc4 33.Qb4+ Kc6 34.Qa4+ b5 35.Qa6+ Kd7 36.Qxb5+ Kd6 37.Qb4+ c5 38.Qd2+ Kc7 39.Qh6 Bg8 40.Qg7+ Kc6 41.g4 a6 42.Qf6+ Kb5 43.Qd6 Kb4 44.Qb6+ Ka3 45.Qc6 Rf8+ 46.Ke3 Rb8 47.Qxa6+ Kb2 48.Qd6 Ra8 49.Qd2+ Ka3 50.h4 Ra6 51.g5 Ra8 52.h5 Re8+ 53.Kf4 Ra8 54.Ke5 Ra6 55.g6 hxg6 56.hxg6 Ra8 57.Kf6 Ra4 58.Kg7 Ra8 59.Qg2 Rd8 60.Qc6 Rd3 61.Qa6+ Kb4 62.Kxg8 Ra3 63.Qb6+ Kc3 64.g7 Rxa2 65.Kf7 Rf2+ 66.Ke7 Rg2 67.Qf6+ Kc2 68.Qf5+ Kb2 69.Kf7 c3 70.Qe5 c4 71.Qb5+ Kc1 72.Qxc4 Rxg7+ 73.Kxg7 c2 74.Kf6 Kd2 75.Qd4+ Kc1 76.Ke5 Kb1 77.Qb4+ Ka2 78.Qc3 Kb1 79.Qb3+ Ka1 80.Qa4+ Kb2 81.Qd4+ Kb1 82.Qd3 Kb2 83.Qb5+ Kc3 84.Qc5+ Kb2 85.Qb6+ Ka1 86.Qg1+ Kb2 87.Qb6+ Ka1 88.Qg1+ Kb2 89.Qb6+ Ka1 1/2-1/2

                  Three-fold repetition

                  https://chessprogramming.wikispaces....sus+Chess+1978

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                    I guess Garland doesn't want to answer the rather obvious questions I asked in response to his points.

                    Meanwhile, here is something that just came out yesterday, very coincidentally on this topic:

                    Two quantum physicists walk in and out of a bar
                    Only the rushing is heard...
                    Onward flies the bird.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                      I have a vague memory of a game that Kasparov won against a computer (Deep Blue?) where there were facing Pawn chains from middle and before of the board, maybe the Q or K file over to maybe the h-file. Can anyone present that game. I would like to find it again. It seemed obvious that White would win, but the horizon prevented the computer from knowing that. I would like to put that position into my software to determine if it could tell today that White was winning.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                        Maybe this game?

                        http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1070875

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                          Originally posted by Mathieu Cloutier View Post
                          Interesting. This is not the image I had in that old memory, but, it seems to fit my other feelings about the game. I will look at it.

                          Thanks!

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                            One wonders what Sir Roger's brother, ten-time British champion Jonathan Penrose, thinks of the position and the assertions about it ...

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                              Originally posted by Stephen Wright View Post
                              One wonders what Sir Roger's brother, ten-time British champion Jonathan Penrose, thinks of the position and the assertions about it ...
                              Well, the guy is in his 80s. He probably doesn't know much about chess engines. Or his information is simply outdated.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

                                Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
                                Given all that, how can we account for any consistency in human behavior? Why wouldn't that same breeze make one change from being politically left to politically right....sometimes?

                                If the probability you mention reaches 100% at certain levels of input, could the brain be feeding certain neurons with the level of stimulation required to ensure those neurons fire (in response to some outside stimuli)? And if yes, could it be that during infancy and childhood, the brain is feeding specific neurons with a lower stimulation level in order to allow them to "possibly fire".... and for the neurons that do fire, if another part of the brain decodes the outcome as "good" or at least "not bad", something in the brain "remembers" that those particular neurons should be supplied with the REQUIRED stimulation to fire from that point on in response to the same stimuli? Could this be the process of learning?
                                1) Said breeze could but it is highly unlikely, unless there are extenuating circumstances. The brain also makes its decisions based on decisions it has made in the past. The more often it has made the same decision the more often it will make the same decision again. Neurologists refer to this as plasticity of our though processes. The more ingrained our thought processes are the more "force" is needed to exert change. In my example I gave two rather arbitrary choices that have little impact one way or another. The breeze in question could affect the decision because the options are so evenly balanced. On the other hand changing from politically right to politically left could be the difference of said breeze while reading another one of Trumps tweets. But I digress. :p

                                2) If I understand what I read about neuroscience, if a given firing pattern in the brain creates a favorable result, a positive feedback system in the brain encourages the growth of neuroreceptors in the brain, thus increasing the flow of dopamines and increasing the likelyhood of repeating the firing pattern. This starts from the point when the first neurons start triggering in the fetus. Initially these are very simple responses to very simple stimuli (neurons make heart beat => blood flows => neurons get nourished), but as neural complexity increases so do the variety of inputs and levels of abstraction that generate positive feedback. The growth of neural pathways and new firing patterns in the brain in response to feedback constitutes learning. The oldest pathways with the greatest degree of reinforcement are the hardest to change. But the initial growth of pathways is influenced by chaos theory.


                                Originally posted by Paul Bonham View Post
                                Perhaps in your example the "decision" of an individual bacteria of when (if ever) to switch from metabolizing glucose to metabolizing fructose as the fructose to glucose ratio increases is akin to an individual roll of N 6-sided dice. The individual roll could sum up to any total between N and (N*6) inclusive at any time, so that roll has "free will". But as you increase the number of times rolling the N dice, a consistent and repeatable probabilistic pattern of outcomes emerges, just as the several million bacteria will decide in a consistent and predictable pattern based on the actual fructose to glucose ratio.
                                Well yes, that was sort of my point. The same logic goes to an electron striking the screen in a double slit experiment. The electron might hit one point on the screen or another, you cannot predict as an individual electron. But after millins of electrons you get a clear interference pattern that you can precisely model mathematically. But does your dice in your example really shows free will when it rolls a 6 instead of a 2? Does the electron? If no, how is the bacteria any different? And if it isn't, how is a person?

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X