Author: Komputer Korner
Date: 12:07:25 01/25/98
Don't get me wrong. I have suscribed to the ICCA journal for almost 10 years and I consider it a valuable source of computer chess news, but it's scientific articles sometimes just do not measure up to a real scientific journal which is what the ICCA journal has always purported to be. In the latest issue there is a prime example of this, titled "Does Deep Blue Use Artificial Intelligence?" In that article R.E. Korf of Los Angeles argues that IBM (a $ 100 billion corporation) is wrong when it says that Deep Blue does not use artificial intelligence. Korf argues that Deep Blue is an artificial intelligent machine!????? Without having access to the source code or hardware of Deep Blue and with only the games of the last match with Kasparov to guide him, Korf has the audacity to claim that Deep Blue has intelligence. He is wrong for the following reasons. 1) If you pull the plug, the machine just sits there doing nothing. 2) The programmer can change the code at any time and make it play stupidly. 3) Deep Blue can not procreate. 4) Even when Deep Blue is running, if a fire starts, the machine will burn up, thus it has no way of saving itself or even knowing that it needs saving. 5) As a prime example of an expert system, it is limited only to the rules of chess. Change one rule and Deep Blue is obsolete until the DADDY programmer changes it's codes. 6) All new conceptual ideas have to be fed to the program by its programmerr despite the fact that it DOES have an automatic evaluation tuner based on games it plays. 7) The match against Kasparov proved nothing except for the fact that it is possible to scare a world champion off his game by a lot of hype. 8) Korf's main reason for concluding that Deep Blue is Artificial Intelligence is that it uses alpha beta minimax with a heuristic static evaluation function. 9) He gives no proof or other arguments to back the previous argument stated in (8) above. All he does is state that "Chess was one of the original AI problems and remains a canonical task." That is tantamount to arguing that since all the world's astronomers in the 1400's said that the earth was flat, that it indeed remains flat!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10) He states that since Deep Blue defeated Kasparov , Deep Blue should be considered a product of artificial intelligence. Deep Blue is a product of human intelligence and nothing more. 11) I would say that IBM is not naive in the field of artificial intelligence. If they say their product is not a representative of artificial intelligence who is a fellow named Korf to argue otherwise? In fact he presents no arguments at all, just statements that he puts out as "His truths". 12) The ICCA referees have always been biased in favour of chess being a subject of artificial intelligence so that their research grants wouldn't dry up. This article is another example of the board of referees looking the other way.
This page took 0.01 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.