Bishop's gambit

Posted by Ankit On May 30th, 2010

Throughout the last 4 years I have been fortunate enough to have had the company of friends who are not only smart people but have an intelligent and curious outlook towards the world. I think that it is relatively easy to be good at something, anything if only you start early enough and work relentlessly towards it. Which is not to say that talent is something which I don't respect. I do, but what I respect more than talent is if it adds a perpective to how a person sees things. There are a lot of really really talented people in the world, much much better than me, and there is something to be said about that, but they only have to open their mouth for you to realize that the capacity for unification of concepts which can potentially come from the pursuit of passion has somehow missed them. As Feynman said, it's similar to the difference between knowing the name of something and knowing something. I have been fortunate to have friends who know things or at least have a healthy drive to know them. Anyway, during one insightful conversation with Rathina today, we started discussing about a mutual interest, chess. The starting point was again a Feynman observation where he is making analogies between science and chess. Specifically he says that finding the laws of nature is like figuring out the rules of the game of chess by looking every now and then at the snapshots of a game. These snapshots are the only information one is allowed to have and the challenge for human intelligence is to find order from this seeming chaos.

Our discussion veered off in the specific direction of trying to see if it's possible to figure out the rules of the game just by looking at it, and if it is possible, how many example moves would one require to completely figure out every rule? Now it's a complicated problem to even pose formally because if it's a human intelligence which is trying to figure out the rules then the answer is obviously indeterminable. It's because while I might take thousands of examples to figure things out, Bobby Fisher might do it in a few games. So we tried to pose it in a computational framework. How many examples would an algorithm need to figure out the rules? How do we define 'figuring out all the rules?' There are only a finite, albeit stupendously large, number of possible chess games. So we defined figuring out the rules as determining all the possible legal moves which would be sufficient to generate all possible chess games. Now it is not an impossible problem, at least hypothetically, to calculate the minimum number of example moves that one would need in order for an algorithm to figure out all the legal moves for each piece which in turn would generate all possible games. That's not the problem though. The problem is the following question, 'As far as the standards of human intelligence is concerned, does determining all possible legal moves equal determining the rules of chess?' For example, it is easy for an algorithm to make a list of all possible positions a bishop can go to but it's a stretch to say that it is equal to the statement 'a bishop always moves on a diagonal.' It is possible to conceive of an algorithm which is built such that it can distill, from all the data it has, seemingly intelligent statements like 'a pawn always moves one or two squares in a straight line unless it captures another piece in which case it moves diagonally' or 'the game is drawn when a set of moves is repeated three times.' It is possible to make an algorithm which can put in words or figure out, from a sufficiently large number of examples, most of the 'intelligent' statements about the rules of chess a human can make. But what about the rules the examples for which it never encounters? One example of such a rule is that a black piece never captures a black piece. Another is that a piece never jumps out of the board. The dilemma here is that while a finite number of examples demonstrate every possible legal move, not even a single example shows an illegal move! When you add to that the fact that an infinite number of possible illegal rules exist, it seems hopeless how an algorithm can ever figure out all that is there to know. It can definitely generate all possible legal games, which was our original intent, but while the human understanding of chess includes the knowledge that a piece never captures a piece of the same color or that the queen is not allowed to jump out of the board or that you cannot say 'abracadabra' and claim victory, how an algorithm would do it is beyond my current grasp.

But I understand that I am probably oversimplifying. The most obvious simplification is that I am talking about a game which I already know the rules for. On the human side I am probably subconsciously delving upon my prior knowledge of the game - something which I cannot do for an algorithm because I don't know how subconscious prior knowledge can be represented for a computer. This makes it intuitive for me to envisage what 'questions' about the rules a human would find worthy of asking. It helps because there are infinite questions one might ask in order to figure out things. But one has to ask the smart questions. And it is not fair to the algorithm because I, speaking for a human, already know which are the worthy questions as far as chess is concerned.

Asking the right questions requires a lot of creativity though. The chess problem is similar to the following physical problem: imagine you had information about every apple which ever fell to the ground. Now you could ask an infinite number of questions which can be verified or refuted by all the apples, but how does one go about figuring out gravity from them? This, I think, has  a deep philosophical implication. The implication is that our theories are not empirical. They can be directly derived from experimentation only to the extent that gravity is a natural outcome of falling apples, which is not much. The more important observation is that their power is in their creative origins and explanatory powers which do not depend upon experiments all that much. It's satisfying to see how the little discussion indicates that the inductivist viewpoint is quite shallow.

Minimalism: An irrational clock

Posted by Ankit On May 27th, 2010

P equals NP

Posted by Ankit On May 24th, 2010

...I need to start hanging out with normal people.

Clash of the Titans

Posted by Ankit On May 13th, 2010

...

A.A. moves his Knight to d5

Tress Vandeley: (Brilliant, brilliant. That's a shrewd one right there. In one fell swoop he has managed to save the fork that was going to be threatening his Queen and Rook 7 moves down the line and build up a momentum which gives him strategic play in the center of the board. I suppose he is thinking of moving his e and f pawns to threaten the integrity of my King's castle while his Bishop controls the black diagonal. And now with his Knight ensconced at such an advanced position I think the game is going down south for me in less than 23 moves. Mr. Alexandrovich's reputation precedes him. But I should never have underestimated a Russian to begin with. Counterattack is my only option. Maybe I can rattle his composure.)

T.V. moves his Rook to c2

Anatoly Alexandrovich: (Why the hell did he do that? I'll move this long towering one.)

A.A. moves his Queen to a4

Tress Vandeley: (My god, such genius. Such genius! 12. Qxd7, Kg8, 13. Kne7, h6... ... ... I estimate a checkmate in 17 moves. Unless I do something now, my demise is just around the corner. To think that someone could have come up with such a deep move at such a nervous juncture of the game. It doesn't take a genius to see that Mr. Alexandrovich has descended from the land of the Karpovs, Spasskys, Kramniks, and Kasparovs. My god, what shall I do here. The only hope I can see here is my aggressive flank on the Queen side and I should try to step up the pressure.)

T.V. moves his Bishop to e3

Anatoly Alexandrovich: (The short stumpy one then the long slender one then the short stumpy one then the long slender one. I get it now. Here gallops my horse.)

A.A. moves his Knight to f6

Tress Vandeley: (Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn Damn. What insight! What absolutely brilliant insight! Is it time that I resign to a guy who is well and truly on the top of his and our game? He already has a significant strategic advantage. Although I am ahead on material but hindsight shows that Mr. Alexandrovich offered his gambits and I lapped them up without enough thought. But what could I have done in the face of such brilliance? That pawn sacrifice on the third move - who could have thought that it was offered to gain positional advantage 25 moves down the line? There is no other way. It's time I give up and accept defeat against a man who is pushing the envelop in our field.)

T.V. resigns by flicking his King.

Anatoly Alexandrovich: Dude, you tripped your slacker.

I'm sorry Mr. Kone

Posted by Ankit On May 11th, 2010

So I got the following mail today (copied here as is),

---------------

Dear friend,

My name is (MR Emmanuel Kone) i am the manager of auditing and accounting department Bank of African, I need your urgent assistance in transferring the sum of ($10.5m us dollars immediately to your acocunt.

upon your reply I will send you full details on how the business will be executed,send me your contact information.

1.Age.........................

(2)Residential adress......................

(3) occupation....................

........

(4)private telephone.................

I Am Waiting to hear from you soonest so please contact me through my private email (mr.emmanuel_kone66@yahoo.co.id

Thanks

Emmanuel kone.

--------

Now I'm not a stickler for formalities and I no longer get worked up over missed apostrophes and dropped letters but this! This, my friend, is completely unacceptable. It's unacceptable because while Mr. Emmanuel Kone seems to be making a business proposition to me, it seems that he is taking my business far too lightly. Maybe it's the effect of the yuppie generation with their demand for instant gratification, their short attention spans, and casual weekdays. Maybe it is a precipitate of a culture hopelessly addicted to the quick fixes of easy technology but to think that such an ill prepared mail with such glaring grammatical errors will secure my favors for Mr. Kone is nothing less than preposterous. And it's not just the grammatical errors which I find supremely disturbing. Here are my other objections regarding the mail,

1. I'm not your friend.

2. I'm generally suspicious of people who have round brackets in their name. They remind me of Charlie Brown. Not that Charlie Brown had curly brackets in his name or was suspicious. In fact being suspicious of people who have round brackets in their names and getting reminded of Charlie Brown are mutually exclusive events. But I thought I'll mention this while I'm at it.

3. I doubt if there is a Bank of Africa. I have graver doubts about Bank of African.

4) That your list is inconsistently numbered bothers me.

But more than being just a train wreck of a mail as far as consistency and grammar are concerned, it has deeper philosophical implications. The world as we find ourselves in today is getting increasingly less appreciative of individuals. As our population inches towards the 7 billion mark, every single one of us matters just a little lesser than what he used to. In times of such grave objectification, can we not  expect a slight indulgence even from those whose only source income is our own gullibility? I find it insulting that someone whose only job is to write purple proses, lace our clarity in sugar coated dreams, and appeal to our humanity and greed with rosy visions of dead people with irrational wills is not willing to spend the requisite effort at cooking up a decent story. Mutual respect, while long dead at the hands of the virtuous, has now lost its final haven in the debauched.

I have fond recollections of Burkina Faso where rich men died in plane crashes. How wonderful! Death has the notorious habit of being mainly superficial except when it happens to those who are completely unrelated to us - in which case it often generates sympathy. But in Burkina Faso, death was beautiful and benign. Rich men were getting killed in plane crashes and their money was being left to me. Millions of dollars were sitting at the doors of the Burkina Faso bank, palpitating, waiting impatiently to be transferred to my account if only I replied. I never did of course, mainly because I was not a dumbass but it was nice being pampered like that. That such selfless and inexplicable good could exist in the world was always a hypothetical notion but there was something good about its fake honesty. Mr. Kone, you disappoint me. That you expect me to be a retard and give you my bank account  number is insulting enough. The fact that you expect it all without putting in any effort from your side is just plain wrong.

-------

p.s. There is actually a Bank of Africa!

Art-less

Posted by Ankit On May 3rd, 2010

It bothers me to think that for all the mystique and hazy beauty that is often endowed to 'Indian art' by nostalgic emigrants and westerners too eager to latch on to the infinite ocean of eastern wisdom, it is actually quite a barren field where new ideas almost never come along and old ones are repeated ad-infinitum. As an example, although Indian classical music is richer and deeper than I would ever have the time and expertise to explore, the truth is that barring a few raagas here and a few innovations there, it has remained almost unchanged through the centuries. Part of the reason for this, I feel, is exactly the same reason why it has the mystique that it has. Because its learning is so regimented and because it has no written notation, it is extremely hard for a layman to appreciate it. This removes Indian classical music to an entirely different plane, one where the common man cannot even hope to reach. This lends a great mystique to it but, unfortunately, it also prevents it from reinventing itself. You can have a beautiful little walled garden for yourself, but sadly, without the forces of creation which come from openness and irreverence, it will remain just that and nothing more. This is probably a reason why such a huge divide exist between high and low music in India with classical music sitting in its ivory tower, unscratched and smug, and popular music, mediocre at best, catering to the taste of the billion who are completely unable to bridge the gap between the two. Music in the Western society, on the other hand, has undergone tremendous changes. From the time when perfections were sought after and Bach produced his masterpiece studies in the mathematical harmonies of music to the acceptance of dissonances and complete ambiguity in what can be considered music - with a plethora of experiments and changes in between - it's a story of the continual asking of questions and never having too much respect for tradition. As a result, the sheer number of forms that theoretically exist lends almost a smooth and unbroken transition from high music to popular music. It is easier to get inspired when you realize that the rules of the game are not sacrosanct - something that is lacking in India classical music.

It might have to do with culture and hopefully that will change with economic prosperity and people would become more rebellious, more questioning, and more intolerant of authority and propriety. I feel that within appropriate laws and freedoms, it's a good thing. It encourages dialogue and makes one rethink some of our most fundamental assumptions. Art gets benefited from such a blasphemous attitude by becoming more cutting edge, more vibrant, and more in tune with the times. Although I'm not very sure of what I mean by being in tune with the times! Marcel Duchamp created the Fountain (a urinal) in 1917 and termed it art. John Cage created 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence as a musical piece in 1952. Jackson Pollock's brand of abstract expressionism lived in the 60s. Schwitters wrote the sound poem Ursonate in the 20s. I don't know what form cutting edge art, which by definition rebels against the existing systems, takes in the contemporary society when everything that there was to rebel against was already exhausted by the end of the first half of the 20th century! A friend once told me that postmodern art is that which takes itself too seriously. I don't completely agree but that's a line of thought I'll save for later. For now I'll live with the solace that with the disapointment that is inherent in the current non-experimental nature of Indian art, comes the consolation that there is a lot left to explore.

Science as a belief

Posted by Ankit On April 26th, 2010

It's interesting how much one doesn't know of oneself until he is asked specifically and has to think about it. So the other day Khatri bhaiyya asked me why I get so flustered whenever the topic of homeopathy comes up. As it turns out, I really do get irritated but if he had not mentioned it I would never have admitted it to myself. Then I had another discussion with Jackie upon something similar and the upshot of it all is that some little things became a bit less vague.

I suppose that of all things that irritate me, the one that does it to the greatest extent is the statement, 'well, science is just another belief.' Frequently it is uttered by someone who has just had a long and winded argument and has decided to settle it all by pointing to the shaky grounds upon which we have built all are architectures. The thing that drives me nuts is that the statement is actually spot on. At its very heart science is actually just a belief with its own axioms and suffers from both an anthropological bias and severe sensory limitations. But it's a very special kind of belief. And it's this special nature of the belief which I find hard to convey to someone who has just made this statement. It's hard to make them understand that the important thing about science is not so much that it has 'made things work' but the fact that it's a humble, self-correcting, and ideally non-dogmatic, non-hierarchical system. A system which always stands incomplete and is never too shy to admit its own incompetence. A system where a rank outsider like Einstein can come along from nowhere and change our entire world view. It's hard to convey how important the act of 'allowing complete irreverence' to exist inside a 'belief system' is to its own well being. This one fact alone should actually be enough to warrant a qualified mention of 'science as a belief' because as I understand, everything else that humans believe in; from religion to economic doctrines to political ideas to homeopathy in fact- everything sort of assumes immunity from the wisdom of the common folk. They are all static and their leaders are unquestionable. So yes, Science at its very heart is just a belief but we should give credit where it's due. We should give credit to a system which, despite the initial appearance, is more equal and more hardworking than others. Or we might not and I should stop giving a damn.

There is another reason why I have more respect for Science than individual opinions and personal hunches. In fact, on a rational day, I have about as much respect for any belief, any morality as any other, including mine - which is not much. The reason is that they are all going to stop mattering or change once the individual ceases to exist, or the environment or circumstances change, or humanity finishes. These presumptuous thoughts don't really matter in the larger scheme of things. Laws of nature, on the other hand, transcend humanity - or so I feel. If there is another civilization somewhere else and if they are intelligent and curious about their surroundings and if they ask questions, I believe that they would find the exact same laws of nature as we have or will - but that's just pure belief and I agree...

So it goes.

Posted by Ankit On April 17th, 2010

Just finished reading Vonnegut's famous Slaughterhouse Five. New York Times, in their original review of the book, said something to the effect that you'd either love it or push it aside as a science fiction book. I suppose great works have that capability of sharply dividing public opinion but I just found the book... listless - which is probably a great compliment for it in a warped sort of way.

The book, like other Vonnegut's novels, is about nothing really. I mean, it sort of has an anti war message in its mundane and trivializing portrayal of the bombing of Dresden. It may be called a science fiction novel in its description of the planet of Tralfamadour but the greatest compliment I can give to the book is that it's about nothing and the only thing it manages to do in its 250 pages is babble about zillion small and disconnected happenings and concepts. I am by no means being critical -  because I really believe that Vonnegut, for the kind of writer that he was, appreciated above all other acclaim, the acclaim of being the champion of nothing. It seems to me that he was the sort of chap who looked at the triviality of the world and the seriousness with which people took themselves with an amused look - and the world with all its self-presumed purpose was nothing but a heady dose of entertainment for him. Very much like George Carlin actually. He preaches no morals, sort of believes in predestination, really doesn't have much sympathy for any cause, and doesn't want anything to do with group mentality. He is disinterested with the travails of the irrational humanity but understands that he needs to milk it in order to lead a decent life. And he knows that he is smart enough to jeer at the dumb humans and us humans would love him for it. Slaughterhouse Five is exactly the sort of novel which you expect to come from such a person.

I love the ideas in the book and share Vonnegut's amusement at human irrationality (not to say that I'm not irrational), but a satirical antiwar book, for me, has to be measured against the gold standard of Catch-22, and it just doesn't hold up there. There is a cruelty in Catch-22, an absolute inhuman disgust at human herd-mentality, a complete disregard for so many of our cherished ideals - it's a symphony in cacophony, and S5 is nowhere near. Vonnegut probably never tried to write another Catch-22 and there is no obvious reason to compare the two but I cannot help it. But here is the thing - if I had to ignore the content of the book and evaluate Vonnegut as the avant garde, zany writer that he was supposed to be, I'd prefer Woody Allen over him. Allen is not considered a great writer maybe because he never really wrote seriously, but from what I have read from him, there is nobody that I've read (with the exception of Kafka) who even comes close to how crazy his imagination was and is. The trouble with Vonnegut is that in whichever department I choose to evaluate his brilliance, it is always easy to find someone else who is much better. So it goes (and that's how Vonnegut ends most of his paragraphs).

Pale Blue Dot

Posted by Ankit On April 10th, 2010

Chicken...

Posted by Ankit On April 6th, 2010

...or Buffalo wings, as they are called in the country for which the rest of the world is an appendix, refers to the uncooked lump of meat skewered over the top of two drumsticks. Sure it has two eyes, a nose, and two ears but these are details not worth the time of anyone except the technical ones - and let's face it, their opinions don't count. So anyhoo, I was describing Chicken. Well, not much to describe there, is it? They go about their lives doing something quite inconsequential until one day - BAM - on a barbeque, roasting away under the warm embrace of Lawry's garlic salt. Some of them give eggs, a lot of which end up in Denny's and the rest of them produce more chickens which send up Lawry's share by a fraction of a percentage. So if there is like a chicken equivalent of Immanuel Kant who has brooded upon the purpose of his life, I suspect that Lawry's pvt. ltd. features prominently in his musings. If eggs have life (you never know, some people even think plants have life!), they probably think about Denny's a lot. But I think we should really rein in our crazy speculations, which already crossed the line of rationality when we started thinking of chickens and eggs as anything more than food. What a crazy idea! Anyhoo, to make things a bit clearer, because let's face it - it's a complicated topic, I have made the following flowcharts which explain everything about chickens and eggs:

1 Chicken -> 2 drumsticks + 1 barbecued breast piece

1 egg -> not much, but 2 eggs -> 1 omlette

Speaking of chickens and eggs, I have often wondered which came first. I think we'll have to see if Lawry's setup their shop before Denny's because let's face it, what would Lawry's have made if the world only consisted of eggs? Vice-versa, how would Denny's have made omlettes from chickens? A quick search shows that Lawry's was established in 1938 and Denny's in 1953 which means there were no chickens before 1938 and no eggs before 1953. There you have it - once and for all, a huge conundrumstick solved!

Loading...
X