Mere calculation

Not everyone plays chess so I’ll try to minimise the chess aspects of this post because there is an interesting addition to the previouspost. In one of the games between AlphaZero and Stockfish 8, AlphaZero made what the YouTube narrator calls a deep positional knight sacrifice.

If AlphaZero had been a human player then this knight sacrifice may well have attracted more superlatives - for example it might have been described as brilliantly imaginative. Computer chess can sometimes seem imaginative, brilliant, clever and strategically creative despite every single move being the result of calculation. There are sometimes subtle differences between computer and human chess but usually we cannot tell the difference unless the human makes the kind of mistake computers don’t make.

It is mere calculation, but can seem like brilliant positional insight. Mere calculation – is that all we do too? Not in quite the same way of course, but the question still hangs in the air.

Quick learner

This story has attracted a certain amount of attention but I'm surprised it hasn't attracted more.

BBC version

Google says its AlphaGo Zero artificial intelligence program has triumphed at chess against world-leading specialist software within hours of teaching itself the game from scratch.

The firm's DeepMind division says that it played 100 games against Stockfish 8, and won or drew all of them.

The research has yet to be peer reviewed.

But experts already suggest the achievement will strengthen the firm's position in a competitive sector.

"From a scientific point of view, it's the latest in a series of dazzling results that DeepMind has produced," the University of Oxford's Prof Michael Wooldridge told the BBC.

"The general trajectory in DeepMind seems to be to solve a problem and then demonstrate it can really ramp up performance, and that's very impressive."

There will be unreported caveats and it is reasonable to assume that the two systems ran on different hardware, but on the face of it this achievement looks like a remarkable demonstration of the growing power of AI. Remarkable enough to be disturbing even.

Of course chess is a rule-based environment suited to computation but AlphaGo Zero seems to have taught itself how to play the game to an extremely high standard in a matter of hours.

Strewth was my initial reaction. It still seems appropriate. So much so that I almost hope those caveats douse the whole thing in cold water but I don't think they will.

Castro wins

Here is an oddity in the world of chess – a game played by Fidel Castro in 1966. It soon becomes obvious that Castro isn’t much of a chess player and his opponent seems poised to beat him fairly easily.

Then from a winning position, Castro’s opponent makes a ghastly and inexplicable beginner’s blunder allowing Castro to checkmate him in one move. Hmm...

Not entirely inexplicable is it? 

As an aside - what does Jeremy Corbyn think of Castro?

“Fidel Castro’s death marks the passing of a huge figure of modern history, national independence and 20th-century socialism,” said the Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who claimed that “for all his flaws” Castro would be remembered as an “internationalist and a champion of social justice”

It’s a pity Jeremy was never in the same position as Castro’s chess opponent. It may have given him a deeper perspective on the man’s “flaws”.

Robot Gamesmanship?

Could you cope?

It is not necessary to know anything about chess here, but the game is unusual in that even a strong international player can end up playing a very talented youngster. The embarrassment possibilities are obvious.

The video is an impromptu blitz game between Samuel Sevian and International Master Greg Shahade played about six years ago when Samuel was a ten year old chess prodigy. He went on to become the youngest ever United States Grandmaster.

Brain power II

source

In the previous video post, world chess champion Magnus Carlsen says he knows which move to make almost immediately - he just knows. He goes on to say that further analysis merely tends to confirm that he hasn’t made a mistake and from that point of view is useless. The move he "knew" to be right turns out to be right.

When applied beyond chess it’s a common ability, this ability to "know" without analysing how and why. It's a kind of pattern recognition. Carlsen recognises patterns on the chess board, strengths and weaknesses he has seen before, similarities with other positions in other games.

For the rest of us it is much the same in daily life. Pattern recognition based on experience rather than analysis. A kind of instinct, a firing of memories, matching similar situations. Goes on all the time. Too often we insert our prejudices instead, but when we don’t we often turn out to be right, especially when it comes to spotting  a false note, a bad move or a weak point.

Most climate sceptics know the heart of orthodox climate science is corrupt. We also know it attracts some of the worst scientists in the world, as well as the worst journalists and the most mendacious politicians. The analysis has to be done but early impressions are merely confirmed. The corruption is blatantly conspicuous.

Many people immediately ridiculed Jeremy Corbyn’s recent rise to the leadership of the Labour party, immediately seeing him as a waste of space who never outgrew his political adolescence. Again it’s much the same as Carlsen assessing a chess position. Corbyn has form, his unsuitability is obvious, the matter doesn’t require analysis, the move by Labour is clearly doomed.

I think Corbyn is too old and inexperienced but I’m also inclined to wait and see if a new mood of totalitarian enthusiasm has gripped a significant section of the electorate. Yet I "know" I'm making the wrong move and ridicule is probably a better reaction. Corbyn has form.

This kind of pattern recognition can work remarkably well for those who know enough about an issue and have no strong allegiances to cloud their view of the board. Many people "know" David Cameron may be decent enough at a personal level but is not politically trustworthy. Unfortunately we also know he has to beat Corbyn in 2020 if they both last that long.

So there are no good moves left. That is obvious too.

Brain power

Magnus Carlsen, the number one chess player in the world.