Author: Amir Ban
Date: 16:23:18 01/25/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 1998 at 15:07:25, Komputer Korner wrote: [entire post snipped] Come on, Komputer. At least be annoyed for the right reasons. ICCAJ decided to bore us to death, and Mr. Korf seems to be the only person around who doesn't realize that any IBM statement on this is done for reasons of PR. I don't think any of your arguments are valid, but your conclusion (and IBM's) are correct. Computer chess is not artificial intelligence, for reasons that computer chess programs will find obvious. In the beginning of the 1980's, Douglas Hofstadter claimed that a computer that plays at a master level would need to have intelligence, in the sense that do that it would have to have, as a necessary by-product, general capabilities exceeding chess that are intuitively interpreted as intelligence. This simply happens not to be true (fortunately for us programmers), and Hofstadter has changed his mind. I do think that other games are better candidates than chess. The sort of capabilities needed to play chess well turn out to be a bit one-dimensional, although this was not obvious twenty years ago. I think Bridge is a much better candidate. Although it's not as deep and complex as chess, it's deep enough, and the capabilities needed to play it strongly cannot be covered by a clever search algorithm: Information passing, positive and negative inferences, playing with intent of revealing or hiding information, and other features of this game make it much more difficult for computers, and maybe require true intelligence. It's hard to imagine a master-level bridge program that is not a stone's throw from understanding natural language, and if you have that, I don't care if you can unplug it or set it on fire. Amir
This page took 0.02 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.