Slitherine

quote:

ORIGINAL: DCWhitworth

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Thanks Eske. But now I have had a few moments during this math storm to throw a few dice and sharpen my guillotines. Got the mob with pitchforks and torches too.

I would think that we might want to find some threshold that indicates AI fruition, lest -- for reasons noted above -- we chase those diminishing marginal returns down little rabbit holes until our halcyon days. I'd love to hear what an acceptable AI is.

Sic Semper Tyrannis,

Mardonius

I would suggest a variation of the "Turing Test".

A recap for non-programmers - (taken from Wikipedia) :

The Turing test is a proposal for a test of a machine's capability to demonstrate intelligence. Described by Alan Turing in the 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence," it proceeds as follows: a human judge engages in a natural language conversation with one human and one machine, each of which try to appear human; if the judge cannot reliably tell which is which, then the machine is said to pass the test. In order to test the machine's intelligence rather than its ability to render words into audio, the conversation is limited to a text-only channel such as a computer keyboard and screen (Turing originally suggested a teletype machine, one of the few text-only communication systems available in 1950.

(FYI - The Turing test hasn't [yet] been met except in very restricted conditions [some people have
mistaken a program called "Eliza" for a human who was making fun of them & got rather upset with "him"])

What I would suggest as a measure of an AI "good enough" to be labeled as "done" would be if you cannot
tell the difference between the AI's play or that of an AVERAGE (not EXPERT) human player; then I would
conclude the AI is done.

I think the Turing test would be an impossible target and in my opinion an unrealistic one. The fundamental fact is that humans do not think like computers so getting a computer to play like a human is even harder than getting it to play competantly.

Computers can play chess better than humans but they don't think about it the same way and they don't play like humans. To beat a human and a chess computer over the board requires different optimal techniques (when playing at a high level), but the computers eventually outpaced the humans, not by playing chess 'better' but by sheer brute force computing power.

In fact the entire computer chess development is a dead end as far as real AI is concerned. It doesn't give any sort of insight into true intelligence, it's just brute force computing in a limited environment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is not true regarding Chess AI. Modern chess AI incorporate genetic algorithms and neural networks, two very strong AI topics in modern computing. The "chess only uses brute force" is a computing myth and can be quickly dismissed with any "google scholar" search for whitepapers.

Does it use search functions? Absolutely, but don't you? Don't you think in steps when playing Chess? You do more than also and SO DOES the AI most of the time. Most AI's will search deeper when finding a line that is interesting and seems (where the AI comes in) to be advantageous, something a human player does all the time.

You can look at a line and know it's going nowhere but you can also see a line and then think "wait a minute, that might lead to something, I need to spend more time thinking about this" and SO DOES THE AI.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss an AI's thinking methods simply because you can explain them in some ISA and you fail to be able to explain your own. Their is no magic behind your thinking, we just haven't discovered the explanation behind the method yet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is not true regarding Chess AI. Modern chess AI incorporate genetic algorithms and neural networks, two very strong AI topics in modern computing. The "chess only uses brute force" is a computing myth and can be quickly dismissed with any "google scholar" search for whitepapers.

Does it use search functions? Absolutely, but don't you? Don't you think in steps when playing Chess? You do more than also and SO DOES the AI most of the time. Most AI's will search deeper when finding a line that is interesting and seems (where the AI comes in) to be advantageous, something a human player does all the time.

You can look at a line and know it's going nowhere but you can also see a line and then think "wait a minute, that might lead to something, I need to spend more time thinking about this" and SO DOES THE AI.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss an AI's thinking methods simply because you can explain them in some ISA and you fail to be able to explain your own. Their is no magic behind your thinking, we just haven't discovered the explanation behind the method yet.

Now you made me curious, Neverman. Which chess programs uses genetic algorithms and/or neural betworks ?
- and which chess programs uses modern chess AI ?

And - to make this discussion relevant to EiA - which part of modern chess AI can be applied to which area of EiA ?

/eske

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
This is not true regarding Chess AI. Modern chess AI incorporate genetic algorithms and neural networks, two very strong AI topics in modern computing. The "chess only uses brute force" is a computing myth and can be quickly dismissed with any "google scholar" search for whitepapers.

Does it use search functions? Absolutely, but don't you? Don't you think in steps when playing Chess? You do more than also and SO DOES the AI most of the time. Most AI's will search deeper when finding a line that is interesting and seems (where the AI comes in) to be advantageous, something a human player does all the time.

You can look at a line and know it's going nowhere but you can also see a line and then think "wait a minute, that might lead to something, I need to spend more time thinking about this" and SO DOES THE AI.

I don't think it's fair to dismiss an AI's thinking methods simply because you can explain them in some ISA and you fail to be able to explain your own. Their is no magic behind your thinking, we just haven't discovered the explanation behind the method yet.

Now you made me curious, Neverman. Which chess programs uses genetic algorithms and/or neural betworks ?
- and which chess programs uses modern chess AI ?

And - to make this discussion relevant to EiA - which part of modern chess AI can be applied to which area of EiA ?

/eske

Modern chess AI incorporate genetic algorithms and neural networks, as I said, so the two are not mutally exclusive as you suggest in your question.

I suggest you start at "google" or "google scholar" to satisfy your own curiousity.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hello Lads:

Besides wargaming and fomenting revolutions, I like to run. Road races, cross country or wherever. One thing I have learned from running races is that it helps to know where the finish line is. They usually even have a little gateway for you to run through and sometimes even a medal to make you feel a sense of accomplishment.

But here with the AI we are running a race where we don't know where the finish is. So can we rewind and ask a very simple question:

If we have not got that human level intellgence from fifty plus years of AI development (see above discussion), what level of AI would a reasonable REASONABLE person expect for EiANW, given that it encompasses a dynamic more sophisitcated than a brute force paradigm? What is a reasonable level of AI?

Follow up question: How do we know we have got to this reasonable level, i.e. crossed the finish line?


best
Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Thresh

How much AI is enough?

More than is present.

Todd

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius
Exactly Marshall. There are so many dynamics in this game that go way beyond the brute force calculation that I too doubt that an AI will be even moderately capable when compared to a mid capability human.

And why do I keep asking about the AI and how much is enough? Glad you aked. Until now we have put the AI (and bug working out... which is another issue) as a higher priority than the OPTIONS or scenario editor. I think I know why... it probably has a bit to do with that survey you put out a few weeks back. Great customer solicitation but I am concerned that this pursuit of the deft AI will mean that you will never turn to the scenario editor and the OPTIONs similar to the ones I have been advocating so quietly.

At some point, you and Mssr Rutins (proud Vermonter) et alias should, perhaps, consider, puting one through the field goal posts and getting some more points on the board. A 1807 scenario should be a piece of cake ("slam dunk", in my hero, George Tenet's parlace)... other OPTIONs -- from both the SCRIPTURE and perhaps from apocryphal sources like those above -- could follow at regular intervals in your bug stomping campaign.

Vive La Revolution!
Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: eske
I certainly will. Just hoped you could give me a pointer to which programs you think of. You obviusly know more of recent succesfull chessprograms than I do. I sort of drifted to other fields when Deep Blue won against Kasparov. That was - as you probably know - based on the brute force approach.

I would be especially interested in programs that use both genetic algorithms and neural netwroks.

/eske

quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

mmmhh....no program has ever passed the turing test. I'd be surprised if EiA AI could make it :)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Mardonius

Hi Marshall:

Man who works 7 days a week 'til the wee hours.

No, you are spot on. I think the decisions to date regarding the AI and Bugs have been the proper ones and needed. One must have some basis of an AI... and I, too, don't think we have quite yet reached that finish line. I'd just like to canvas our community to figure where we should strive to have that line.

My own druthers for an AI would be sort of like one of those jousting tilt-a-whirls that knock you off your horse if you don't duck in time. Great to practice on but if you want a real challenge, best take on the Black Knight. I reckon that is, at least an obtainable and useful goal.


All the best,
Mardonius

quote:

ORIGINAL: Marshall Ellis

I'll take this as a goal ... to knock you off your horse :-)

quote:

ORIGINAL: gwheelock

quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

mmmhh....no program has ever passed the turing test. I'd be surprised if EiA AI could make it :)

This is not completly true.

quote:


ORIGINAL: neverman

From wikipedia:

While neither ELIZA nor PARRY were able to pass a strict Turing Test, they - and software like them - suggested that software might be written that was able to do so.

quote:

ORIGINAL: HanBarca

quote:


ORIGINAL: neverman

From wikipedia:

While neither ELIZA nor PARRY were able to pass a strict Turing Test, they - and software like them - suggested that software might be written that was able to do so.

...and.. ?

That's the reason I entered this thread

quote:

ORIGINAL: yammahoper@yahoo.com

I had a first happen to me the other night. 

I fired up EiA with the latest beta patch and started a game as Turkey.  I placed a three corp army in the holy land to invade Egypt and my fleets to bring in a diminshed Nazud corp and full Janissary with transport.  I put the other Janissary corp outside Constantinople and decided to fucus on getting North Africa.

Egypt held out till April and I moved West.  Spain had seized Morroco, and while I was in Cyrenica, Spain declared war on me and moved a corp with Castanos into Algeria.  I had declared war on Tripitania, so I moved my fleets into the blockade box with the transport feet off the coast to drop the full Janissary corp and supply the invasion.  To my delight and frustration, the Spanish navy moved in and captured my transport fleet and entire Janissary corp! 

On the negative side, after two losing battles in Algeria with the Algerian corp, I had the Spanish corp down to one factor while I had five factors left.  AT this point a bug occured and my Algerian corp became effectively invisible.  Even though I was besieging the city, control switched to spain and I lost the city.  Now I had the Spanish Heavy fleets sitting in the water off Tripitania so I could not move mine (though it did not blockade, which must have cost it a fortune), my Nazid corp trapped, AND I had made Syria a nuetral so my Anatolia corps could invade it and make it a conquered.  The result was a trip to instability and the loss of all my gains!

Then Austria declared war on me.

So now I am totally stapped for cash, my allies Russia and France keep refusing me any aid, even claiming my request for $5-10 are excessive, and so far the AI is being fairly responsive to my aggression.  These are nice improvements.  I have lost battles before, but never before has the AI handed me my hat like it did last night.

yamma

quote:

ORIGINAL: NeverMan
Oh yeah, and to make a joke about real people not having enough "I" to often know what they are doing or saying.