Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:18:44 01/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1998 at 15:07:25, Komputer Korner wrote: I posted a response to this nonsense in r.g.c.c... I'd refer anyone interested to look it up. Otherwise hit "next" to skip this post as it is not worth the time... >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 Change one rule and Deep Blue is obsolete until the DADDY 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 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.