Author: Enrique Irazoqui
Date: 09:30:27 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 11:43:36, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On March 14, 2001 at 10:05:05, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi Bruce: >>I wonder if your statement about generalizing as the clue of the issue is enough >>precise for the task of approaching it. I am not sure a program that can handle >>specific positions in terms of a general kind of criteria is "generalizing". It >>sounds to me more as categorizing. Categorizing supposes that a category >>previously exist and that there are certain rules to allocate cases inside each >>of the boxes of the category. So it is, in a dregree, a mechanical task. >>Generalizing supposes, IMHO, not only that, but to create the category, to >>discover something common that was not aparent before. So a really intelligent >>act not only order the world, but order it in some different way. Of course not >>all days we can do that, but then maybe it could be said that no all days >>intelligent people behave as such. A great deal of our behaviours is just some >>kind of rutine, even if it is high level rutine. What I would accept for >>programs is that they use some kind of rutinized intelligence, pre-cooked >>intelligence. But, again, all this supposes a certain criteria about >>intelligence that maybe is mine but not yours. This is a very open case for >>debate. >>Cheers >>Fernando > >Programs take a position and produce a move. If the position is something >unexpected by the programmer, in many cases they still do fine. > >A human exhibits intelligence when he or see meets a new situation and makes a >joke about it. > >Human intelligence is much more generalized and much more complex, but this >isn't about whether the programs are human, it's about whether they exhibit >intelligent behavior. I don't have a definition of intelligence better than "the ability to understand", which includes learning and relating seemingly unrelated realities. I don't consider chess programs then more intelligent than a calculator or a mechanical winding rat. >Playing chess is good enough for a program. To beging with, they don't play. They make exclusively mechanical moves following a pretedermined and invariable set of instructions. An illustration: [D]3k4/1r2p3/r2pPp2/b1pP1Pp1/1pP3Pp/pP2K2P/P7/8 b Give this position to programs time and again and until the end of times they will evaluate is as a crushing win for black. That's not intelligence any more than the talk of a parrot. Enrique > So what if they can't brush their >teeth or have a social life? A lot of chess players can't either. > >bruce
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.