Author: Dan Homan
Date: 07:04:16 01/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1998 at 21:49:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >If the computer can play a game that requires intelligence to play, then >obviously the computer has to have some sort of "artificial >intelligence" >component to play the game. Else the entire premise is false. If you >want >to make a case that chess doesn't take intelligence, feel free. That I >can't >discuss as I'm not into that sort of stuff... > That implies that questioning 'established' definitions is kind of flaky... I think I've understood your point as I've laid out in previous posts, but I get the impression that you've made no effort to understand mine. I'm simply trying to explore the implications here... Does the fact that a brute force algorithm can play chess imply that intelligence is involved in the algorithm or does it imply that chess does not require intelligence to play. Simple question which is difficult to answer... This seems like the kind of question a computer scientist would want to answer. If you are simply interested in engineering a better chess program, that's cool. - Dan P.S. I don't buy the argument that "chess requires intelligence to play" is accepted by all experts. The Deep Blue team is very careful not to suggest that Deep Blue is demonstrating intelligence when it plays chess. The obvious implication is that they have come to the same conclusion that I have.
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.