Posts
Comments
Will RYK be as good a player as Kasparov? Of course not. Sometimes the RYK system will randomly make dreadful moves which the real-life Kasparov would never make - start the game with P-KN4. I assign such moves a low probability, but sometimes the computer makes them anyway, by sheer random chance.
If you believe that Kasparov would never make that move, you should assign it a probability of 0.
Regardless of whether Grob's Attack is dreadful, this article is. RYK doesn't make dreadful moves that the real-life Kasparov would never make because of "sheer random chance", it does so because it has nothing whatsoever to do with Kasparov -- you could substitute 'I' ("how I imagine a good player might move") for 'K' everywhere in your silly article. The information content of RYK is drawn solely from the chess knowledge of an astoundingly weak player -- you -- deflated by your own uncertainty about your chess judgment. That is, it's the same as RYY, but with the probabilities smeared, reducing the probabilities of the moves you think are good and increasing the probabilities of those you think are bad. If you're a bad enough player, RYK could actually be better than RYY, by sufficiently often avoiding the horrible moves you would make and sometimes making good moves that you never would.
As for calibration, RYK is not at all calibrated to Kasparov's actual behavior, making invocation of his name, and any surprise as to how badly RYK plays, absurd. Your blather about "the creative unpredictability of intelligence" is absurd; Kasparov could be a completely deterministic engine, always making the same moves in the same positions, and nothing would change -- he would still beat your ass every time and RYK would still suck.
editors help build better editors
But not by much, and not much better editors. It takes something else -- better concepts -- to build significantly better editors, and one only needs a moderately good editor in the process. And regardless of things like Eurisko, no one has the faintest idea how to automate having significantly better concepts.
All "insights" eventually bottom out in the same way that Eurisko bottomed out; the notion of ever-increasing gain by applying some rule or metarule is a fantasy. You make the same sort of mistake about "insight" as do people like Roger Penrose, who believes that humans can "see" things that no computer could, except that you think that a computer can too, whereas in reality neither humans nor computers have access to any such magical "insight" sauce.
The future has a reputation for accomplishing feats which the past thought impossible.
Yes, but our ability to predict which seemingly impossible feats will actually be accomplished is quite poor, so this fact is neither here nor there, but it is appealed to by crackpots everywhere as an ad hoc defense of their own claims.