Author: Graham Laight
Date: 09:04:09 10/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 17, 2000 at 09:22:30, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On October 16, 2000 at 06:12:20, Graham Laight wrote: > >>Following discussions in the "recognising chess patterns" thread last week, I >>believe we have reached the stage where it possible, with today's PCs, to create > >I'm sorry, based upon what conclusion can computers get smart? They've been smart since mechanical calculators could out-compute humans. The areas where they're smart is steadily growing - they areas where they're not smart steadily declining. >I mean you can learn till infinite times, but still do nothing useful >with the knowledge: how do you plan to INTERPRET the knowledge? > >I mean suppose you have a few tera of knowledge, how do you DISCRIMINATE >between what is good and what is wrong? > >Where is your decision algorithm? > >This is the whole point. I've never seen a good decision algorithm >to decide which pattern is good and what pattern is wrong. Same as humans - base it on similarity with previous known cases. >>a self learning chess computer. Before, I have always had doubts about whether >>it could be done with current technology - now these doubts are gone. > >I think a machine which only knows true of false will never get smart >like we humans are. Nothing compares to human mind! That i think i >concluded not because i'm religious, but basically based upon tens of >thousands of tries. Something is wrong or something is true on the >computer. Nothing between that. Maybe we're currently trying the wrong way. Maybe doing something different will yield the results. >Working with percentiles like the neural networks can do also sucks bigtime, >as it still is not doing any statements between wrong and good. > >So on the one hand we want a clear decision to be taken, but we don't >want to do that based upon heuristical bounds! Why wouldn't that be possible? It works in other areas. >>Disappointingly, the discussion thread died out - possibly because people didn't >>realise what was in the thread. >> >>So here's the deal. I will think through the outline design of such a system, >>and write it up in my (hopefully!) clear style for everyone's perusal if, and >>ONLY if, at least 5 people promise to comment on the design after I have written >>it. > >i'm always in for betatesting learning systems as long as they can >run under either windoze or linux. my email: diep@xs4all.nl Unfortunately, we're still at the stage of discussing how it might work! Beta testing is some way off... -g >>So, if you want to read it, and you're willing to comment on what I write, >>please indicate this by responding to this message. > >here you have the reply of someone who's prepared to test, but at the >same time thinks you want to build a scyscraper from water in the >sahara desert. > >>Regards, >>Graham
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.