Comments/Ratings for a Single Item

In ''Defining the Abstract'' Mark Thompson discovers four timeless
factors defining a CV (or game, or formal axiomatic systems if one will).  Namely, Clarity, Decisiveness, Drama, Depth. The tradeoffs are apparent.
Which are markedly like polar opposites? Which paired opposites in tension forever try to drag the other down, in the quest for coherence?  Which
reduces or offsets  the other one's effectiveness in any design? Go ahead
and guess, there being only the three possibilities. Why obviously, Depth
versus Clarity, and secondly Decisiveness versus Drama, as Thompson
enunciates. Think predator versus prey: more depth means less clarity by
and large. Or like balancing an equation: if less decisive then more
dramatic, by some rule of balance. Observe a binary star system's unending tug-of-war: an abstract game's play-offs. Two-body problems three- four-,
multi-. ''Defining the Abstract'' appears to have been written for
short-lived website 'Games Journal' in 1990's.

The Universal Library. Not without reason we associate every possible CV
with a name. Every word or phrase actually in any language, known or
unknown. 'The Universal Library' by Kurd Lasswitz was written as
serio-satiric fiction in 1901. Cannot the first Chess Variant be taken as
one of those in the Alfonso Manuscript year 1283? For Mathematics itself at
same time, Spanish-Majorcan Ramon Lully (1235-1315), Raimundus Lullus,
articulated the earliest version of the Universal Library. If we take one
characteristic of something, Lully postulates, and state all the
possibilities, we must of necessity state the Truth too. One modern
version asks, how long will it take Chimpanzee (or Computer?) to type out
fully-correct version of 'Faust', 'Don Quixote' or ''The Tempest''? A
recent Comment -- ridiculing the infinity of CVs -- points out there are  huge but finite number possible states of the Universe. In Physics also, dispensing
with Time is explored by Julian Barbour's 'The End of Time'(1999), 
sentences of which introduce ''Chess Morality XVII: Turning Rhyme.''

Lasswitz's Universal Library (1901) settles on 100 different characters
and each volume 40 lines per page, 50 characters per line etc.: 10^6
characters per volume. We want to express in ''print'' everything which
can ever be said, be it scientific or metaphysical. How many volumes are
required? In the Library, Lasswitz asserts, are the lost works of Tacitus
and all the future works of everybody as well. One volume has the ''space
repeated one million times.'' Another goes that way until one 'a' at the
end of line 40, page 500. The CV counterpart might be Large one-dimensional
Chess with one shared royal Alfil. 
In 13th Century, Lullus' device used concentric rings, to be turned to
bring inscribed words into new arrangements: Blood is *blue* *green*
*purple* *red*. Other investigators followed. Giordano Bruno, Athanasius
Kirchner, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibnitz. Leibnitz's calculating machine,
reducing the problem, performed addition, division, roots, exhibited at
London in 1763.  Kempelen's chess-playing 'automaton' Turk, invented
1769, debuted at London 1783. [See previous here] Symbolic logic,
combinatorics, game theory, computer algorithms. No infinity. Instead,
perfectly finite number whether volumes, game Rules-sets, languages,
within certain defined parameters only so many possible arrangements.
Variously, according to aspects and whether we count books or sheets: as
many as 10^2000000 (Books) or as few as 25^1000 (Sheets). Herewith strict 500 pages or equivalent, although notionally a Variant could postulate 501 pages. A fortiori, within hundred-square space or less there can be only finite Rules-sets likewise because they one and all are circumscribed or subsumed within finite wording and characters. [Source: ''Postscript to 'The Universal Library' '' by Willy Ley]

Hereclitian-Calvinball is coming to my mind here again.  The question again
I will ask is whether or not these set rules can be combined in an infinite
number of configruations

We thought, well great, here is some original topical Chess material for
once, instead of CVPage esoterica or the standard columns and blogs
promoting dead or dying FIDE Chess, owned by Computer. But wait, it is not
Mike Henroid's weekly column but the Bridge(!) column by Jared Johnson
next to it 25.May.2008 with the interesting content in local paper. Writes
Bridge expert Johnson, ''Both chess and bridge are great games, but
interest in top-flight chess seems to be waning for one major reason. Most
Chess games among experts result in draws -- and that's boring. You rarely
have ties in bridge. ....  Whereas Chess has just two opponents facing each
other, a bridge event can have dozens or hundreds of pairs, so no one is
playing for a Draw. Another problem with Chess is that the standard range
of opening moves has become so thoroughly analyzed and predictable, you
just don't get much excitement. Not so at Bridge. You get the occasional
dull deal, but the next hand might be seven hearts, six clubs and 17 high
card points. If they really do want to rejuvenate Chess, some new
approaches are needed. Computers have already beaten world champions at
Chess. The bridge computer programs aren't even close, since the game is
so much harder to program with all the hidden variables.  Knowing that a
machine can beat a man has been one more blow to Chess. At Bridge the
humans are still on top. .... Meanwhile, Bridge players will pick up their
next hand with fair confidence that most of the time the complete deal
will be something they've never seen before. And there will be a winner.
And a loser.''

George, I am told that Bridge, fine game though it is, is also in decline;
and a visit to a tournament will often see screens erected in front of
players to prevent cheating by the use of signalling – a poor sight
indeed.  Western Chess may be (slowly) dying but so too will Contract
Bridge.

G. Nicholls

And today's top programs, as would be expected, have high national bridge rankings. In 2005 and 2006 a Dutch bridge magazine (IMP) discussed matches between five-time computer bridge world champion Jack and 7 top Dutch pairs (including the European champions of the time). The program defeated three out of the seven pairs (including the European champions). Overall, the program lost by a small margin (359 versus 385 imps).

I am not sure about full aspect of the two comments. I played occasionally in
Duplicate Bridge tournaments as undergrad at Harvard in our Winthrop House
Dining Room. Would that change the test with computers, Duplicate all
playing same hands, unlike Contract?  How could Johnson be so far off? Johnson's column is on Duplicate, and actually the sentence is the only one I lopped off last words:
''The bridge computer programs aren't even close, since the game is so
much harder to program with all the hidden variables and psychological
factors.'' -- J.J. 25.May.2008. Psychological factors at Duplicate in
long tournament, Computer is not yet so advanced maybe to play without
human intervening on behalf. Our task though is to ask, is it not terrible  problem that most of our 3000 Chess games, with programming attention,
Computer can rise soon to the top; so why not start re-designing to deal with that some way? [The same Wikipedia article GG reads also says ''In comparison to computer Chess, computer Bridge is in its infancy. The question whether Bridge-playing programs will reach world-class levels in foreseeable future is not easy to answer.'' Whereas Chess programs the likes of Kramnik already will not play anymore; so it is matter of emphasis, the Bridge 360-385 loss being probably sound defeat, and Johnson's wording about right that ''Computer not close'' to be any time soon.]

What is style? Are there styles of individual designers in their CVs, their chosen artwork? The last sentence below returns to ''style.'' Because Computers play 8x8 so well definitely led to my losing interest in reading any more standard Chess books by 1990's for improvement. What Computers do better than we can has affect on our motivations, everyone in varying degree and according to subject. Why play FIDE Chess anymore when purchased program wins every time?  Many decide not to play for the very reason. To repeat from the other thread, surely most of the
vanishing interest in Mad Queen is attributable to Computer dominance. (The Comment separates the subject, repeating somewhat, from their Piece Values thread.) Will Computer eventually write entire books to be published during this 21st Century? Could Computers yet find palindromes ''Never odd or even'' or ''Are we not drawn onward, we few, drawn onward to new era?'' Of course, but not without the motivation to do so. So let us systematically remove the motivation for certain computer projects, if it impinges upon dignity. Are there CVs they will not master? Greg Strong mentions types of Chess that programs have difficulty with. Do Computers have style anyway? Evidently they do, from analyis in Chess blogs about Computer vs. Computer matches. The complaint by Grandmasters is often also that somehow their Chess play lacks style, or their style is unappealing, evinced in phrase ''Computer move,'' as if that means something somewhat derogatory.

Hey we started this Chessboard Math thread, so we can add irrelevantly and
irreverently as follows. Devise a test for top-50 Grandmaster X (or K).
Set up certain moves from actual play at various stages, say 20 boards
altogether.  Some are Computer-Computer, some Human-Human, and
Computer-Human. Be sure the chosen 'X' or 'K' has used the phrase
''computer move'' before. The test is to determine whether given
moves, numbering 20 in the test, all from different game-scores one of
each, is *Computer Move*.  Most likely they cannot tell, better than expectation 10 of 20, and such talk is bluster.  Turing test anyone?

Chess (orthodox chess or 'FIDE') is very hard to master and a very
difficult game to compete in. The real reason most give up on chess is
because there is too much competition and to get an 'edge' one must be
sufficiently knowledgeable in opening theory (but not excessively
memorizing lines as this does NOT improve play), constantly analyze past
games with the help of a computer and also analyze high level games
played. Not to mention constant practice. 
Online resources are normally filled with players playing in realtime
especially 2/12  5/12 blitz.

Any chess variant with same rules but with extra pieces with sufficient
popularity will reach this stage (though larger board games it would be
difficult for humans to memorize as much lines). 
Computers aid most modern chess players in analyzing games and do not
contribute to any 'decline' in chess except in the eyes of spectators
not too familiar with chess who may not respect the chess player for been
beaten by a computer. 
Computer programming has advanced sufficiently that a program can be
written for any game that relies on perfect information. 

Computers are only behind in games with psychological aspects such as
poker. 

The effect of computers on chess popularity - None, except to serve as a
useful learning tool.

How good a program? 

This is a serious question; if you can make the game more one of pattern
recognition than calculation, can you reduce the computer's ability to
'always' win? 

For example, Gary Gifford's Time Travel Chess [or whatever it's properly
named]; it allows players to go back and change previously-played moves -
how easy is this to program? 

The 'dark' chesses, those with imperfect information, they are more
difficult, and the computer would have to play those more like a wargame,
which has possibly perfect piece information, but semi-random combat
results. The computer has to use a more statistical approach to moves
there, and I would think it would also [have to] use a more statistical
approach in Kriegspiel, which is exactly opposite - totally determined
combat but unknown piece placement. So I'd suspect variants designed to
be more like wargames might reduce the computer's ability to crush its
human opponent. Others have disagreed.

What types of chess variants are hard to program?

Joe, 
Time travel chess will not be a problem because the computer has a record
of all past moves made. Of course it would take some to develop a suitable
algorithm but that game should not pose a problem. 
Kriegspiel  is also no problem (just dont ask me to do program it!) - same
thing here - the computer will be normally better at building many trees of
possible piece placement etc. 
Statistical based games are not a problem, but any game relying on human
psychology will be more of a problem. 

For instance, computers already can play poker well based on starting
hands,bet amounts and even can execute certain types of bluffs but fail
miserably when it comes to detecting bluffs and adjusting to player
styles. 

Go has been touted as been something a computer cannot do well in but I am
not sure if this situation will last. 

And as Gary Gifford said earlier - why the need to invent a game that a
computer can't solve anyhow?

Why the desire/drive to design games computers find it difficult to play?
Competition. I know it's a John Henry sort of thing, at best - especially
since I'm a strong AI proponent. I accept that computers can out-calculate
me in most chess variants. I'm looking for games where people can compete
on more or less even terms with a computer. Not games that computers
can't play, but games that computers can't calculate people to death in.


If I understand correctly, the big advantage that computers have over
people is the ply-depth, or number of moves, the computer can calculate.
What ways are there to make the calculation of ply-depth more difficult
without making things too complex for a human? Or are there any?

Possibly another way to express this is that I'm looking for contests
where the advantage is not all on the computer's side. Computers don't
play complex wargames, with multi-move turns and all the other
paraphernalia they entail, nearly as well as chess. To me, a 'contest'
implies more than 1 side can win. I don't play arithmetic games [eg: Fizz
Buzz or speed-multiplying 2 2-digit numbers] against computers because
there's no contest. I do play games like Sid Meier's Civilization, where
I do have a chance. FIDE seems to have moved from one side of that line to
the other recently. [Lol, maybe what I'm saying is that I could beat the
original chess computers...]

So, not a need, but a desire, and not a superiority but a parity - that's
what I'm hoping for. The best games are those where both sides have a
chance. Since we play against computers so much these days, then at least
some of our design should reflect that, I think. And now, off my soapbox
'til next time. ;-)

Humans are strategic players, computers are tactical players. Computers can
follow a few pieces in long sequences, humans are better at evaluation
whole board situations. Thus a game where strategy counts and that the
evaluation function quickly engulfs the whole board, would be the hardest
for computers. Another thing would be is that if the differences in the
relative worth of the positions are subtle, and that the resolution is
sufficiently in the end game that the program is forced to evaluate more
positions within any one ply. 

However there is another approach, that is to have a game of sufficiently
high complexity class and sufficiently scalable, then one just need to
increase the size of the board to keep it out of the computer's reach,
especially if the time complexity is beyond exponential, or space
complexity is beyond polynomial. In this kind of game one can think of
leveling as computer and humans battle at increasingly higher levels.

Assuming a computer is in good working order and that it has a program for
the game in question, then if it cannot play the game well, it is only
because it is lacking something in its code.  With refined codes near
optimization - the programs will defeat the humans.  If a human cannot
accept that, then he (or she) can simply play other humans to have a fair
brain-to-brain playing field.

Given enough time a well programmed computer will at least draw humans on
any finite game, that I certainly agree, but there still much utility in
creating games that at this point computers are woefully bad at. At this
moment at least computers think in many ways very differently than humans.
By throwing widely varying situations for computers to master, we develop a
fuller theory of cognition. I think humans should always strive to beat the
computer so as to improve both us and the computer. 

It took over a decade to solve checkers completely, humans are not over at
abstract games yet.

So, lots of pieces, large board to give those subtle gradations of
positional value, multi-move turns with a mechanism to spread each turn's
moves across the gameboard, scalable... what games are examples of this
[besides Gas Hogs ;-) ]? 

Go is, I believe, still an example of a game that humans play better than
computers. The weak spot in the idea that computers can play any game
better than humans, with the right algorithm, is the algorithm. I would
guess that idea is not proved, and suspect it may not be able to be proved
[Godel is the mystic name I invoke here, for the obvious reason]. But that
is speculation. What is, to the best of my knowledge, true, is that
computers don't play all games equally well now. [Otherwise, we wouldn't
need generals or CEOs, except on gameboards.] So, by providing
'difficult' games for computers, we may encourage better AIs in the
future. :-D 'Gaming has always driven computer design' is to a
considerable extent, a truism. So let's maybe help it along in a slightly
different way, by providing games that need new algorithms.

[Edit] I see Ji is ahead of me. One point he made I only thought of is the amount of time a computer needs to come up with a good move. I lose to Zillions because I tend to attempt to match its speed. While I am beginning to look at 2 possible initial moves, it's already 11 plies down. I'd like a game where a 2 minutes per move time limit was an equal handicap to both me and the computer.

P.S. - Arimaa has a nice web-site devoted to it (even has an animated tutorial with music); and has World Championships for humans, and another World Championship for computers (thus encouraging programmers to create a winner). I can see where this game would be difficult to program, after all, do the human programmers even know what is the best strategy/tactic in a given position?

Anyway, time is on the side of the computers.

Actually games can make good contribution to computer science in pushing it
to create a good theory of practical complexity. Currently there's only a
good theory of worst case complexity and a passable theory of complexity
of approximating within certain percent of best or worst case. But
practical complexity has to be estimated without really necessarily
knowing the worst case. 

The practical significance is with such a theory computers can have a better feel for strategy, instead of either only planning for the worst case, or using more or less blind (actually guided) search.

Basically, the computer in front of you is a complex adding machine. It doesn't think nor recognize patterns the way a human does. Yes, we've made the adding machines complex enough that they can do things like play music and movies, and even play Chess well. But we haven't been able to have it so computers can, for example, translate from one language to another without the translation being so bad it's just about not readable.

Nor have we been able to get a computer to play a game with a high branching factor, like Go or Arimaa well. Computers play Chess very differently from humans; they just look at all of the possible moves, using 'alpha-beta' pruning to determine which moves are and are not looking at. They don't recognize patterns; they just see possible future moves and how much material they have.

A computer needs to evaluate millions of possible positions to play as well as a human who only looks at dozens of possible positions. Computers aren't able to really see a given position to evaluate how good it is; they only play as well as we do because they basically brute force through just about every possible chess move so many moves down.

Games like Go and Arimaa are good because brute force just doesn't work with these games. In order to have a computer play these games well, we will have to make a true AI breakthrough. Which will probably have consequences far beyond just having a computer playing some abstract game really well.

Actually computers are far more sophisticated than merely 'adding
machines'. IN fact the computer algorithms that play chess are not brute
force. The brute force ones are the ones all GMs and Ims can easily
defeat.  
Computers see many strategical advantages such as doubled pawns, isolated
pawns etc _ these are all built in - Computers will choose moves based on
above IF there are no branches that will give them an even greater
advantage.
In fact computers make better decisions by valuing material over positions
 a bit more than humans . Humans tend to make more unsound sacrifices.
Computers don't do so (though they can be programmed to)

I think the problem with making a computer play these games is to develop
the algorithm which is a human endeavor. the computer is a machine that
can handle and process logic that we program. 
Once an algorithm is developed to prune the unnecessary branches for Go
and Arimaa then computers will easily dominate. Perhaps the problem with
these games is that there is not enough theory yet to develop a suitable
algorithm. 
What is been forgotten here are the brilliant programmers who contributed
to the current chess machines we see now. 
So no breakthrough in computer technology is needed at all, just more
human minds translating the strategy/tactics needed to win into
programming.  

Pattern recognition is not a problem for computers but this is a vague
notion at best. Humans tend to go with a 'feel' for something. This
'feel' cannot be translated logically. The computer needs something more
tangible.  

I think winning patterns  can be programmed into Go, but the Masters must
be willing to GIVE UP THEIR secrets! 
Exactly how much literature is out there for Go and especially Arimaa ? 

I think Go is the next challenge of computer programmers. 

Arimaa is simply not popular enough to be taken seriously by computer 
programmers.

Back in the Big-board CV:s thread, I also had trouble when clicking on Next 25 item(s). I figured out how to make links like these: skipfirst=25, skipfirst=50. Here is a little known computer trick:

Zillions of Games Discussion Boards

Desired Features for Zillions of Games

Jeff Mallett (Jeffm) Posted on Tuesday, April 24, 2001 - 6:21 pm:

>...would it be simple to have an option to search 
>to a fixed depth (and then apply quiescence or 
>whatever search extensions ZoG usually uses) 
 
You can do this now. Go to the Computer Opponent dialog and... 
* Set the search time to infinite 
* Set the variety to none 
* Set the strength according to the fixed depth you want 
(the minimum setting is a depth of 1). 
 
This will allow you to compare as you want.