If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Policy / Politique
The fee for tournament organizers advertising on ChessTalk is $20/event or $100/yearly unlimited for the year.
Les frais d'inscription des organisateurs de tournoi sur ChessTalk sont de 20 $/événement ou de 100 $/année illimitée.
You can etransfer to Henry Lam at chesstalkforum at gmail dot com
Transfér à Henry Lam à chesstalkforum@gmail.com
Dark Knight / Le Chevalier Noir
General Guidelines
---- Nous avons besoin d'un traduction français!
Some Basics
1. Under Board "Frequently Asked Questions" (FAQs) there are 3 sections dealing with General Forum Usage, User Profile Features, and Reading and Posting Messages. These deal with everything from Avatars to Your Notifications. Most general technical questions are covered there. Here is a link to the FAQs. https://forum.chesstalk.com/help
2. Consider using the SEARCH button if you are looking for information. You may find your question has already been answered in a previous thread.
3. If you've looked for an answer to a question, and not found one, then you should consider asking your question in a new thread. For example, there have already been questions and discussion regarding: how to do chess diagrams (FENs); crosstables that line up properly; and the numerous little “glitches” that every new site will have.
4. Read pinned or sticky threads, like this one, if they look important. This applies especially to newcomers.
5. Read the thread you're posting in before you post. There are a variety of ways to look at a thread. These are covered under “Display Modes”.
6. Thread titles: please provide some details in your thread title. This is useful for a number of reasons. It helps ChessTalk members to quickly skim the threads. It prevents duplication of threads. And so on.
7. Unnecessary thread proliferation (e.g., deliberately creating a new thread that duplicates existing discussion) is discouraged. Look to see if a thread on your topic may have already been started and, if so, consider adding your contribution to the pre-existing thread. However, starting new threads to explore side-issues that are not relevant to the original subject is strongly encouraged. A single thread on the Canadian Open, with hundreds of posts on multiple sub-topics, is no better than a dozen threads on the Open covering only a few topics. Use your good judgment when starting a new thread.
8. If and/or when sub-forums are created, please make sure to create threads in the proper place.
Debate
9. Give an opinion and back it up with a reason. Throwaway comments such as "Game X pwnz because my friend and I think so!" could be considered pointless at best, and inflammatory at worst.
10. Try to give your own opinions, not simply those copied and pasted from reviews or opinions of your friends.
Unacceptable behavior and warnings
11. In registering here at ChessTalk please note that the same or similar rules apply here as applied at the previous Boardhost message board. In particular, the following content is not permitted to appear in any messages:
* Racism
* Hatred
* Harassment
* Adult content
* Obscene material
* Nudity or pornography
* Material that infringes intellectual property or other proprietary rights of any party
* Material the posting of which is tortious or violates a contractual or fiduciary obligation you or we owe to another party
* Piracy, hacking, viruses, worms, or warez
* Spam
* Any illegal content
* unapproved Commercial banner advertisements or revenue-generating links
* Any link to or any images from a site containing any material outlined in these restrictions
* Any material deemed offensive or inappropriate by the Board staff
12. Users are welcome to challenge other points of view and opinions, but should do so respectfully. Personal attacks on others will not be tolerated. Posts and threads with unacceptable content can be closed or deleted altogether. Furthermore, a range of sanctions are possible - from a simple warning to a temporary or even a permanent banning from ChessTalk.
Helping to Moderate
13. 'Report' links (an exclamation mark inside a triangle) can be found in many places throughout the board. These links allow users to alert the board staff to anything which is offensive, objectionable or illegal. Please consider using this feature if the need arises.
Advice for free
14. You should exercise the same caution with Private Messages as you would with any public posting.
15. Have fun!
(Thanks to Nigel Hanrahan for writing these up!)
A chess problem solvable by intuition but not by computers
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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?
Tweet
Comment