Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:13:55 01/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 1998 at 10:04:16, Dan Homan wrote: >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... My comment above was based on what I thought you were trying to say. I simply don't want to get into a discussion of "what is intelligence?" or "does it take intelligence to play chess?" Because I don't care. however, I stand by my position that for 30 years computer chess has been a part of the field known as "artificial intelligence", it appears in every AI book I have seen, the algorithms used are covered in every AI book I have seen, etc. Based on that I stick by the statement "computer chess is a valid part of AI". And based on that, every chess program I know of is a part of AI research. no claims that programs are intelligent. don't know what that means. No claims that a program learns like a human... don't know how a human learns yet. No claims that a program can generalize like a human. Don't know how a human does that either. No claims that a program can 'evolve' by itself either. So my claim is fairly narrow, based on established literature and doesn't attempt to extend the definition of "artificial intelligence" to any of the above human characteristics... > >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... I agree. If you want to make this case, it's an interesting topic. It's very thin ice, however, because you might find that *nothing* requires any intelligence, and that leaves us in a pit. > >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. not at all. That souns like the kind of question a psychologist might want to answer. Computer science is more result-driven than "how" driven. IE I want to make the computer play chess. I don't want to make it play chess by emulating a human... That would be a different goal. And it would be impossible at present since we have no idea how a human does play chess. > > - 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. That might well be a vaild conclusion. I have no idea. And since I'm not a psychologist, it is doubtful that I'm ever going to attempt to answer that question. If you choose to accept the comments of Hsu over the comments of Minsky, Mccarty, etc... Hsu might be right. I simply choose to ride along on history's coattails for the present, until someone proves that chess doesn't require any intelligence. And then I'm going to demand that that person teach my dog to whip Kasparov...
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.