Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 23:36:34 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 22:34:36, Bob Durrett wrote: >Chess engines [or programs] which can learn might be compared with regard to how >fast and how well they learn. One could define a chess-playing program's I.Q. >by creating a scale with the "average" learning computer arbitrarily assigned an >I.Q. of 100 and the smartest [fastest &/or best learning] currently available >program assigned an I.Q. of, say, 150. Similarly, one which learns poorly could >be assigned an I.Q. of, say, 50. A program without any learning ability at all >would be said to have an I.Q. of zero. The rest of the programs could be placed >on the scale in some manner which made sense. > >Chess-playing programs which can learn might differ in various ways, which might >make the definition of I.Q. somewhat awkward. For example, one program might >only be able to improve it's opening book. Another might be able to increase >it's strength in the middlegame, assuming that it plays worthy opponents who are >strong enough to teach the program something of value. Similarly in the >endgame. > >This raises several questions: > >(1) What are the I.Q.s of popular chess engines [or programs]? In what ways do >they differ with respect to their learning abilities? > >(2) Which engines/programs should be rated the highest with respect to it's >learning ability? [possibly broken down by phase of the game in which learning >can occur] > >(3) Are there any practical limits to how smart [high I.Q] chess >engines/programs can be made? What sets those limits? > >(4) If an off-the-shelf "high-I.Q." chess engine can be educated, then why not >deliberately educate it prior to delivery to the customers? The only >requirement seems to be the availability of qualified teachers. > >(5) Are there any practical limitations on how well educated a chess >engine/program can be? [Do their "brains" get "filled up"?] Could you have a >"PhD" engine who graduated, after several years of "study" from a "college" >where all of the "professors" were top GMs? IQ is [roughly] mental age divided by physical age. That's why a 5 year old who can perform integral calculus in his head [typically] has a high IQ, but it is not necessarily true for a man of 25. Now, computer programs are very young. Most are less than ten years old. So that is a big bonus in their favor. But none of them can figure out simple allegories or explain why "the fog comes in on little cat feet" is good poetry. They would probably score well in math, but I am afraid that English would really crumple them. I'm guessing they would score about 50, which means they would definitely have to be institutionalized. But that's pretty much the current situation anyway. After all -- we take care of them. They really don't know what to do when the lithium battery dies or the hard drive fails. If you just want to figure out smart they are at chess, play them against each other and see how they do. BUT (you might object) What about the brilliant sacrifices some programs make? Well, if they really are brilliant and the programs really do understand them, then they will win more games -- won't they? The SSDF and WMCCC are (therefore) good estimators of computer smarts. Perhaps even more so are the competitions against human GM's.
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.