What are the basic differences between human and computer strategy? Is Stockfish so much sophistical, that it can play the "human intuitive style" way?
If we e.g. reduce the program deep of search / or time per move to the "human abilities", would be the computer still very strong, or in fact the program is relatively stupid and it wins only due to the "brutal power"?
I am not an expert on the programming/coding of these chess engines. However, it is an interest of mine. So much so that I oftentimes think to myself, "how can I play more like the computer?" This is possible to a minimal extent. The computer tends to play, in the words of some chess masters I have come across, to play ONLY the position. Unlike humans, computers have no conception of making a PLAN. They may appear as if they have some sort of plan, e.g. playing certain logical, human-like moves, however it only does so because it is programmed to do so (i.e. it is following a strict opening book/line). World champion Anatoly Karpov has been described as strictly playing the best, objective move in the position. One can train themselves to do this.
What humans cannot do is calculate the vast array of lines and variations that the computer is capable of crunching. The computer can "see" many moves in advance and find, objectively & logically, the best move. This is simply impossible for the human mind (as of present) & could only be achieved, maybe, by some sort of savant.
The words objectively & logically are key. The computer is not hindered by the emotions, plans, and ideology that humans bear. That being said (as to answer your original question), Stockfish cannot play the "human intuitive style" because it has no hopes & dreams (in not very scientific terms). In order to play in such a fashion, one would have to give the computer "heart." The complexity of emotion & desire that the trillions of neurons and weaving's of our brain fabricate. Humans are truly unique in this respect & this is what sets us apart from the computer. Mikhail Tal's do not exist in the world of chess engines.
Some food for thought. You could write a book on this topic.
Good post!
If you want you could make an engine play like a human. But what would be the gain? It's a huge effort only to get an engine play much worse than it could.
In the old days the tried to get engines to play like humans. Nowadays they try to get humans play like engines. ;)
I think, this questions are just for very strong players.
Average players like me are not able to recognize, if I play against strong human player or against computer.
I think e.g. Stockfish is so strong (even the here "on-line version"), that the moves are for us equivalent for strong human player. We are not able to see the lettle differences in style, or something like that ...
Another question is, if the weaker levels (limited time per move) can simulate some weaker player, but it doesnt matter ...
Computer analyses milions of combinations, human player look at the "pattern" and the result is strong moves from the given positons.
The one move is always just one - and it could be strong or weak and it doesnt matter, how it was calculated.
If the computer would make too strange moves - it would be weak moves ...
If the Stockfish has ELO 3200 (or so), then it do strong moves and the difference vs. strong human players is visible and interesting just for grandmasters ...
@Dionysus If you are referring to my input, thanks. :-)
Great post! Maybe another important question would be: How could computers and humans work together? Here is an interesting video on the topic: http://goo.gl/EwkhOM.
Professor, that's called Correspondence chess. :D
And yes, that is indeed interesting, the engine is very strong at seeing everything but the human still can help guiding the search. (which engines are not yet THAT good at)
This topic has been archived and can no longer be replied to.