From: jhc@ivan.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Subject: Problem with computers; process vs. product
Reply-To: jhc@iris.brown.edu.uucp (James H. Coombs)
Organization: IRIS - Brown University
Date: Wed, 2 Sep 1992 07:08:48 GMT

While reading the recent issue of Computer Chess Reports, I had a
realization about my dissatisfaction with chess computers/programs.

First, let me say that I own a dedicated machine, a chess program, and
a chess database.  I use all three, but primarily for analysis.  I
played against the dedicated machine a lot when I was first learning
the game, but I lost interest in the machine as I played more
tournaments and encountered weak moves that I could not handle, etc.

Second, let me say that I tried to use the machine as a sort of tutor,
but I have not been satisfied with the results since about month three,
when I worked through My System.  Eventually, I learned that machines
are generally strong on tactics and weak on strategy.  So, that
explained why playing the machine against itself for a few moves taught
me nothing about most positions.  Even when I was a beginner, I found
it more useful to coax the machine into, say, a kingside attack by
forcing certain moves.  In other words, I started to provide strategy
and let the machine handle the tactics.  The two of us together could
usually beat the other (the machine alone).

Finally, this coaxed machine played more like a human.  It was directed
by a human.

And to make a long story short, chess is a game, and many of us play
games not for the outcome but for the process.  That is, the game is a
diversion, entertainment, etc.  The primary goal is entertainment, the
1-0 is a secondary goal.  The importance of process over product
increases as the length of the process increases.  Basically, if I am
going to play a four-hour game, I better enjoy those four hours in some
way, because a point, a rating, even a check for first prize---these
things mean nothing.  That is, they mean nothing compared to the check
that I get for my work, compared to the rating Ph.D., etc.

And that is the problem with computers: they are product oriented.  To
a computer programmer, the algorithms are interesting.  Even the
process can be interesting to some extent: I have spent many hours
monitoring database programs, bench marking, etc.  But now we are
talking about my interest in my own creations, which is different in my
interest in playing against a computer.

We can even talk artificial intelligence.  Let's take the weak
approach:  we want computers to accomplish what people accomplish, but
we do not require that they accomplish it in the same way.  Or, we want
them to accomplish more than people accomplish, etc.  Now we are
reaching the point where the chess computers can beat grandmasters and
may soon beat the World's Champion.  But, for the most part, they do
not accomplish these feats in ways that we find interesting.  That is,
they create the product but not the process.  (I am struggling to express
this idea.)

Now I find myself attracted to the Mephisto machines because I keep
hearing that they play more like people than do many of the other
machines.  Unfortunately, they do not play that much like people.  What
do I care?  I want a tutor, in part.  I want an opponent that will play
like my opponents.

Ok, enough.  The idea is simple.  Process is very important in games.
I think this may explain a lot of the dissatisfaction that people have
with computers.  Even more important, I think, is the fact that
computers are not people, and people want to play with people, not just
because of the nature of the process but because of something that goes
beyond the selection of moves.  But then this observation just brings
us back to process, only on a different level.

Comments?  --Jim
Newsgroups: rec.games.chess