Chessmasters didn’t easily program chess programs; and those chess programs didn’t generalise to games in general.
I’d say a more relevant analogy is whether some ML algorithm could learn to play Go teaching games against a master, by example of a master playing teaching games against a student, without knowing what Go is.
And whether those programs could then perform well if their opponent forces them into a very unusual situation, such as would not have ever appeared in a chessmaster game.
If I sacrifice a knight for no advantage whatsoever, will the opponent be able to deal with that? What if I set up a trap to capture a piece, relying on my opponent not seeing the trap? A chessmaster playing another chessmaster would never play a simple trap, as it would never succeed; so would the ML be able to deal with it?
Hehe—I don’t normally do this, but I feel I can indulge once ^_^
Moravec’s paradox again. Chessmasters didn’t easily program chess programs; and those chess programs didn’t generalise to games in general.
That would be good. I’m aiming to have a lot more practical experiments from my research project, and this could be one of them.
I’d say a more relevant analogy is whether some ML algorithm could learn to play Go teaching games against a master, by example of a master playing teaching games against a student, without knowing what Go is.
And whether those programs could then perform well if their opponent forces them into a very unusual situation, such as would not have ever appeared in a chessmaster game.
If I sacrifice a knight for no advantage whatsoever, will the opponent be able to deal with that? What if I set up a trap to capture a piece, relying on my opponent not seeing the trap? A chessmaster playing another chessmaster would never play a simple trap, as it would never succeed; so would the ML be able to deal with it?