The idea is that raw search doesn't help in certain games. For example, it is estimated that the possible number of _legal_ chess games is on the order of 10^120. That is more than all the atoms in the entire (observable) Universe.
Now clearly, there are many many less games than 10^120 that are of a quality level, but even that number is enourmous. Basically, even if you had a computer that consisted of computational units the size of an atom, with each atom capable of doing supercomputer like searches for the entire age of the Universe, even with this monstrosity you could not exhaust all of these possibilities.
However, computers use all kinds of tricks (alpha-beta pruning) to pivot search trees so that they do not go down a node in the search-tree that is less likely to produce a "score" less than the current score.
This is where the static evaluation function comes in. The role of the static evaluation function is to assign a value to the current position. Older programs used to use very simple scoring functions, e.g., add up the values of the pieces held by both sides, which side has more "space", who controls the center, etc.
After Deep Blue/Thought, that changed. IBM hired several Grandmasters to enhance the computers "understanding" of positional chess. They incorporated that knowledge into it's scoring function. Positional chess is what humans do. It is a slippery term that is used to describe what constitutues good positions and is the hallmark of the very best players. There is a huge volume of chess theory that talks about it...
When Gary played DB, there was one game where the machine made a move that simply could not have been seen by a search. It was a purely positional move that showed a VERY deep understanding of the position. Gary was so taken aback by this game that he was sure that there was some cheating going on, that there must actually be humans involved in helping DB, that he demanded of the IBM team that he be given the "sheets" at the current position when the move was made by DB.
It is my opinion that after this game, Gary has never recovered psychologically and seems to play "nervously" against the computer.
Answering your original question is very difficult - perhaps the most difficult question in all of Science. No one really knows how the human brain works at this level. Penrose has a theory, but it is not known if it is true, and most think it is a scam. IMHO, it is the first real attempt at an "explanation" that I have ever seen...
Most people think we lost something as a race and a people when the World Chess Champion lost to a chess playing computer. I instead marveled that "we" are able to stand to-to-toe and compete with something as monstrous as Deep Blue.
It is as close to being Neo and doing the thing that he does in the Matrix against machines...
nitro
Quote from aphexcoil:
Anyone watch this match on ESPN? I saw it via the webcast and it was pretty exciting (if you call waiting 3 minutes for each move to be exciting -- but still more fast paced than baseball).
What I don't understand is how the two players were compared. A lot of comparisons stated that Fritz could analyze 800,000 per second while Kasparov can only analyze 3.
Well, if that's the case, then why isn't Kasparov getting his ass kicked every time? I don't like the original analogy that IBM used when Kasparov played Deep Blue.
Apparently, Kasparov's brain is analyzing thousands of positions per second. He may not be consciously aware of it, but instinctively he knows that certain moves do nothing for the game. There has to be some serious computation going on in the recesses of his mind.
. What is this guy trying to prove? I hope it dosen't turn out like last time with the guy freaking out and leaving "half way" thru a game because he new he was allready in a corner.:eek:
