A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

[Kerry Liles]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Yes, Kerry, I wasn't being critical of Egid, just wanted to point that out for this particular case. Sorry if it came across the wrong way.

The one sentence you wrote, "The fact that some pieces are pylons is not something most/any chess programs would specifically have code to deal with" is (I believe) the whole point Penrose is making. We humans can adjust our thinking to the fact that so many pieces, and most of them Black, are not movable. We can very quickly draw the conclusion since Black can only move dark square Bishops that 50 move rule will apply.

The chess engine would know that 12 of the pieces on the board cannot move, but there would be no code to treat those pieces as a group and then add in the fact that Black can only move dark square Bishops and then apply a heuristic that lets it know 50 move rule will apply.

By the way, it was I who mentioned this heuristic and the fact that while it could be added, there would be almost no payoff ever. Perhaps Mathieu mentioned it also.....

Anyway, I think Penrose has a valid point even if as Mathieu says his research might be a little over the top in terms of potential payoff. But there are companies trying to create robotic systems, and the ultimate vision of that would be a robot that could do everything a human could do, something on the path to the Data character on Star Trek NG. Or let's even consider self-driving cars. An engine that drives your car for you would need to adjust to weird situations that the designers might never that thought of. I personally don't think that can happen without a neural net, some fantastic hardware, and a LOT of training. Any attempt to just write such an engine from scratch and cover all scenarios is doomed to failure, imo....

....although "failure" in this case might mean only that some scenarios are going to come up that the engine can't handle, and the same can be said of humans. I guess the question is, can they make from scratch a system (no neural net, no training) that can outperform humans in avoiding accidents. That might be possible.... remains to be seen.

Overall I think Mathieu's criticism of Penrose here is unwarranted. If the research could lead somehow to better robotic systems, the payoff would be huge.

Interesting points Paul... I am not entirely certain of Penrose's intentions (and newspaper articles or media interviews OFTEN (inadvertently) misrepresent things by using alternative wordings (hehe)
I would not be so presumptuous to criticize Roger Penrose... (apologies for not attributing the idea to you - it gets confusing in here...) :)

[Peter McKillop]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

... Overall I think Mathieu's criticism of Penrose here is unwarranted. ...

And disrespectful, it seems to me. But perhaps I feel this way because I'm not familiar with Mathieu's accomplishments; i.e. perhaps Mathieu's successes in the fields of physics and mathematics are of sufficient greatness that he is justified in looking down his nose and sneering at Penrose.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Overall I think Mathieu's criticism of Penrose here is unwarranted. If the research could lead somehow to better robotic systems, the payoff would be huge.

And disrespectful, it seems to me. But perhaps I feel this way because I'm not familiar with Mathieu's accomplishments; i.e. perhaps Mathieu's successes in the fields of physics and mathematics are of sufficient greatness that he is justified in looking down his nose and sneering at Penrose.

My criticism of Penrose is that he uses this kind of chess problem to posit that quantum stuff is happening in our brains and that's why we understand said chess problems quite rapidly, while the computers have a harder time. Secondly, he also stated that his problem was 'unsolvable' even for supercomputers and this is just false. Computers can play that position and draw easily for either side.

And he gets funding to pursue that 'research'...

As Paul said, we understand such problems because we 'use' a more flexible neural network (our brain). No need to try to force quantum physics in there.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Paul,

First of all, the problem is titled 'A chess position to defeat computers'. Sorry, but I have to disagree. This position cannot be used to defeat modern engines even running on modest hardware. Penrose claims that even supercomputers don't understand the position. I say bollocks.

Try playing moves from the position with a modern engine running on infinite analysis. I did it with Komodo and Houdini and it's not long before the evaluation falls to 0.00. i.e. as soon as the 50 moves rules comes within the search horizon of the engine.

This whole thing boils down to a very simple fact: in chess, there is the 50 moves rule, which is in fact 100 plys for an engine and this is beyond their search depth. Change the 50 moves rule for a 15 or 20 moves rule and any engine will correctly assess the initial position. Nothing esoterical going on here, as Penrose claims.

I don't own a chess 'engine'. To clarify, because of my ignorance of these engines, does an evaluation of 0.00 always mean that the engine thinks the position is a draw? What about a position where there was dynamic equilibrium? How would an engine indicate that if not by 0.00?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

And, by the way, on the chess side of things Frederic Friedel of chessbase agrees with me, as do many other people. There are better examples of chess positions that engines struggle with, while humans see the solution rapidly.

Secondly, look up Penrose's research on the 'quantum mind' (more specifically the Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis). This stuff has been mostly regarded as lunacy for two decades. All their proposed mechanisms have been experimentally discredited. And they have been found guilty of misquoting scientific articles in order to prove their point.

[Egidijus Zeromskis]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

And, by the way, on the chess side of things Frederic Friedel of chessbase agrees with me, as do many other people. There are better examples of chess positions that engines struggle with, while humans see the solution rapidly.

Secondly, look up Penrose's research on the 'quantum mind' (more specifically the Penrose-Hamerof hypothesis). This stuff has been mostly regarded as lunacy for two decades. All their proposed mechanisms have been experimentally discredited. And they have been found guilty of misquoting scientific articles in order to prove their point.

How much monies were invested (through grants etc) to get rid of "lunacy"? Some ideas are bad, some are good. Just no need to be stubborn and stuck to a single one.

[Peter McKillop]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Does a Komodo or Houdini evaluation of 0.00 always mean a draw or could it also mean, depending on the position, dynamic equilibrium?

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

How much monies were invested (through grants etc) to get rid of "lunacy"? Some ideas are bad, some are good. Just no need to be stubborn and stuck to a single one.

Sometimes you know an idea is bad, you have experimental proof to back up the assessment and no further monies need to be spent on the subject.

But, strange enough, publicly funded scientific research doesn't always work that way.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Does a Komodo or Houdini evaluation of 0.00 always mean a draw or could it also mean, depending on the position, dynamic equilibrium?

Define 'dynamic equilibrium'.

[Kerry Liles]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Does a Komodo or Houdini evaluation of 0.00 always mean a draw or could it also mean, depending on the position, dynamic equilibrium?

My understanding of 0.0 is that the engine does not see a significant edge for either side (one could interpret that as drawish or engine myopia or complete lack of understanding... :) )

[Peter McKillop]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

My understanding of 0.0 is that the engine does not see a significant edge for either side (one could interpret that as drawish or engine myopia or complete lack of understanding... :) )

Thanks, Kerry. The more I read Mathieu's following post the more uncertain I am of what he's trying to say.

Paul,

First of all, the problem is titled 'A chess position to defeat computers'. Sorry, but I have to disagree. This position cannot be used to defeat modern engines even running on modest hardware. Penrose claims that even supercomputers don't understand the position. I say bollocks.

Try playing moves from the position with a modern engine running on infinite analysis. I did it with Komodo and Houdini and it's not long before the evaluation falls to 0.00. i.e. as soon as the 50 moves rules comes within the search horizon of the engine.

This whole thing boils down to a very simple fact: in chess, there is the 50 moves rule, which is in fact 100 plys for an engine and this is beyond their search depth. Change the 50 moves rule for a 15 or 20 moves rule and any engine will correctly assess the initial position. Nothing esoterical going on here, as Penrose claims.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Thanks, Kerry. The more I read Mathieu's following post the more uncertain I am of what he's trying to say.

Well, you can't use the fact you don't understand engines (or the rules of chess) to prove anything...

[Paul Bonham]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

Thanks, Kerry. The more I read Mathieu's following post the more uncertain I am of what he's trying to say.

Originally Posted by Mathieu Cloutier
Paul,

First of all, the problem is titled 'A chess position to defeat computers'. Sorry, but I have to disagree. This position cannot be used to defeat modern engines even running on modest hardware. Penrose claims that even supercomputers don't understand the position. I say bollocks.

Try playing moves from the position with a modern engine running on infinite analysis. I did it with Komodo and Houdini and it's not long before the evaluation falls to 0.00. i.e. as soon as the 50 moves rules comes within the search horizon of the engine.

This whole thing boils down to a very simple fact: in chess, there is the 50 moves rule, which is in fact 100 plys for an engine and this is beyond their search depth. Change the 50 moves rule for a 15 or 20 moves rule and any engine will correctly assess the initial position. Nothing esoterical going on here, as Penrose claims.


Peter, it is clear that Mathieu is completely misunderstanding this problem. Mathieu thinks that this position is presented and both the humans and the engines get to actually play out moves from this position. He concludes that because both the humans and the engines would play correctly (not take a Rook, not advance the c6 Pawn) then the engines are NOT defeated as Penrose Institute indicates.

What Mathieu does not understand -- and perhaps he should be flown over to the Penrose Institute to have his brain scanned, as an example of what NOT to aspire to in computer engineering! -- is that no one gets to "play moves". There is no game that gets played, it is not a test of how an engine would PLAY from this position. It is an exam question where the humans and the engines must all ASSESS the position.

Note I put every emphasis on the words "play" and "assess" -- bolded them, underlined them, put them in all caps! I'm hoping this will wake Mathieu up to the simple error of his ways.

Mathieu even contradicts himself.... he says that if we change the 50 move rule to a 25 or 30 move rule, the engines will assess the position correctly. So suddenly he seems to realize that the engines are not assessing the position correctly with a 50 move rule! Which is the point of the problem!!!!

But alas, Mathieu then goes back to talking about "playing moves" (sigh). And he disses the Penrose Institute (well actually, Penrose himself) for stating that "he [Penrose] also stated that his problem was 'unsolvable' even for supercomputers and this is just false. Computers can PLAY that position and draw easily for either side."

Again, I had to add emphasis to show that Mathieu went back to talking about "playing" the position. Mathieu, get it straight: no one is "playing" the position. The problem is to correctly ASSESS the position.

Penrose is correct. No supercomputer on Earth will correctly assess this position, even if you give it maximum resources and let it run for centuries. It will never reach the 100 ply search depth needed.

I let Stockfish 8 run this problem for 31 minutes on one of my older computers, a quad core Intel i5 laptop with 6GB RAM. I even removed the Black dark square Bishop on g3, so Black only has 2 dark square Bishops. I thought that might reduce the possibilities such that Stockfish might actually reach the 100 ply search depth in some reasonable time, as Steve Douglas alluded to elsewhere in this thread.... Here is the top line it came up with:

56 -26.98
1.Kd3 Bh6 2.Ke4 Bc7 3.Kf3 Bc1 4.Ke2 B1f4 5.Ke1 Bfe5 6.Kf1 Bd4 7.Ke2 Bd6 8.Kd3 Bf4 9.Ke2 Bg3 10.Kd3 Bd6 11.Ke4 B6e5 12.Kd3 Bc3 13.Ke4 Bc7 14.Kd3 Bf4 15.Ke4 Bh2 16.Kd5 Bc7 17.Ke4 Bg3 18.Kf3 Bce5 19.Kg4 Bd6 20.Kf3 Bh4 21.Ke2 Bf6 22.Kf3 Bfe5 23.Kg4 Bd4 24.Kf5 Bg3 25.Ke4 Bdf2 26.Kd3 Bf4 27.Ke2 Bd4 28.Kd3 Bh6
1850.85 seconds
2.966 billion nodes

So it was on 56 ply search depth, gave a score of -27 (27 Pawns advantage to Black) and had searched almost 3 billion positions. Sounds not too bad? Well, in about the first 10 seconds it was at 50 ply search depth. It took about 15 minutes to go from 55 ply search depth to 56 ply search depth. It still has 44 more plies of depth to go, and if we assume each subsequent ply takes double the time of the previous ply (a very conservative estimate, since the search tree grows exponentially), that means take about 15 minutes and double that 44 times.... so that's 15 minutes times 17,592,186,044,416.... about 2,748,779,069,440 days.... 7,525,746,939 years..... a little over half the current estimated age of the universe.

And that's with only 2 Black dark square Bishops......

I've come down hard on Mathieu, but he deserves it. He came down hard on Penrose on the subject of this chess problem without even understanding the problem.

It's like Trump saying he understood how to defeat ISIS "better than the generals".... and then once elected, Trump asks the Generals to give him within 30 days a plan to defeat ISIS!!! Millions of Americans fell for this baloney.

But let's give Mathieu a break and put some blame on the wording of this problem. They should have made it absolutely clear that they meant to compare humans versus computer engines on assessing the position, not playing from the position. Some people are going to see the word "defeat" and think it means the computer or human might lose if playing from this position. I am 100% confident that is NOT what Penrose Institute meant... because no current engine in the top 100 would lose playing from this position as White.

And on the subject of Penrose investigating quantum effects in the brain, I don't know HOW such research can be conducted since quantum effects are (almost?) impossible to detect and measure especially in the context of an actual working human brain.... so maybe it is a valid point to say public funds should not be going towards such research. That is a question for voters of the U.K. to determine.

[Mathieu Cloutier]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

And as predictable as clockwork, Paul comes up with a lengthy post that only moves the discussion backwards....

[Paul Bonham]

Re: A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers

And as predictable as clockwork, Paul comes up with a lengthy post that only moves the discussion backwards....

Well, Mathieu.... if you are so boned up on quantum physics that you can conclude, to the contradiction of Sir Roger Penrose, that there are DEFINITELY no quantum effects going on in the human brain....

then you must have read papers that are MUCH MUCH more lengthy than any of my posts, without complaining about their length!