That sounds to me like "a dumb human with a smart algorithm can beat a fast computer with a dumb algorithm" -- which speaks more to Penrose's reluctance to improve algorithms in his dumbed-down computer models than it does to any quantum-physical effects.
Stir in some theorem-proving ability - where a great deal of research was accomplished decades ago - and a computer chess program can prove theorems about chess positions, including "these bishops can never get past these pawns." This may be useful in computer Go. One of the reasons human pros do well is that they compute certain sub-problems once, and don't repeat the effort until something important changes. They know in an instant that certain positions are live or dead or seki; they know when a move ( reducing a liberty, for example ) disturbs that result. This could probably be emulated with theorem-proving ability. Presently, search algorithms have to rediscover these results many times over; this is (in my opinion) why computer programs get significantly weaker when starved for time; they cannot think deeply enough to solve problems which may be solved in an eyeblink by a pro. I've observed some high-dan-level amateurs playing complex semeai on 19x19 games. They might not actually know the result of a semeai, but they respond quickly to moves which would alter the status - if one of my liberties is taken, I take one of his - until such point as the player takes a noticeably long time to re-analyse the semeai and think "I need not respond to that move" and takes sente. The stronger the player, the more accurate these assessments are. Terry McIntyre <terrymcint...@yahoo.com> "And one sad servitude alike denotes The slave that labours and the slave that votes" -- Peter Pindar ________________________________ From: Mark Boon <tesujisoftw...@gmail.com> To: computer-go <computer-go@computer-go.org> Sent: Thu, October 29, 2009 10:14:18 AM Subject: Re: [SPAM] Re: [computer-go] First ever win of a computer against a pro 9P as black (game of Go, 9x9). Roger Penrose thinks the human brain can do things a Turing machine cannot. (Note: I don't say 'computer'.) He claims it's due to some quantum-physical effects used by the brain. I doubt his ideas are correct, but he did have a few interesting chess-positions to support his theory. Typically, they would contain a completely locked position, say a V-shaped pawn position and bishops on the wrong color to pass the pawn-ranks. These types of positions are very easily analyzed by even mediocre players, yet a computer never gets the right answer. Basically what it shows is that the human brain is able to conceptualize certain things that enable it to reason about situations that cannot be calculated by brute force. I don't claim that a Turing machine cannot do such things as well if programmed well, but it's very easy to see that there could be barriers to computers, no matter how much computing power you give them, if they solely rely on a simple method with brute force. Mark _______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
_______________________________________________ computer-go mailing list computer-go@computer-go.org http://www.computer-go.org/mailman/listinfo/computer-go/
