• tal@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    10 hours ago

    It’s the same idea with a game like chess, where we’ve developed essentially “perfect” computers that can compute every possible board state from a given point onward and give you an optimal move

    Chess isn’t solved: chess computers have outplayed the best current human players, but they can’t always provide an optimal move, can’t look down branches far enough. Although they do use Minimax!

    But it is similar to the extent that you can get not-perfectly-optimal play that will probably do better than a human.

    When dealing with humans, there will always be weaknesses to exploit

    That’s probably true.

    • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      10 hours ago

      they can’t always provide an optimal move

      After the first 10 moves or so, they can. There’s something like 9 billion possible chess positions after that point, and opening theory is well established, so it’s largely solved. Computers can calculate something like 100 moves deep (and nearly all branches), though they do use heuristic to eliminate unlikely branches.

      There are some interesting games between top bots because of that heuristic, but any of the top bots will consistently beat a human because they can compute orders of magnitude more possible game states.

      So it’s essentially solved, meaning that, in practice, a top AI will pretty much always beat or draw a top player. The difference in rating between a top bot and the top human player is something like the difference between a GM and someone aiming for IM, and we expect a similar performance difference.