Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 12:22:07 01/27/98
Go up one level in this thread
On January 27, 1998 at 13:19:13, Pedro Irazoqui-Pastor wrote: > >>On January 26, 1998 at 21:49:53, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>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 >> > >Not to cut in on the discussion here, but I don't know that it is >anywhere written that there is only one way to play chess. That brute >force 1/0 algorithms make for a good game of chess, Deep Blue if not >others has proven. That this makes them interlligent I for one and many >a psychologist as well I imagine, would dispute. Intelligence is >obviously more than simple boolean operations on data-bits, at least I >hope so. Note that you missed the keyword, like most everyone else is missing it. This word is "artificial". IE would you argue the point that somethine like "sweet 'n low" *is real sugar*? Or is it an "artificial sugar" or a "sugar substitute"? That's the issue I see. Computers are playing chess. If we accept the age-old premise that playing chess is intelligent, then computers are somehow "simulating intelligence" since the obviously are not human and don't have 'real' intelligence. This is why it is, and always has been called 'artificial intelligence'... BTW, there's no guarantee that we don't operate at a binary level. Physics makes this likely at some level or another. > When I play a game of chess, admittedly far worse than Deep >Blue, I rely on some amount of reasoning, some memorized >tactical/positional rules, and a certain amount of inspiration. The >first to an extent computers have, the second they are masters of, and >the third is completely beyond them. Certainly Deep Blue never claims to >have anything like intelligence, it is marely a multi-processor, >dedicated, beast of a machine. A super-calculator if you will. Neural >Nets and analog computers come far closer from my understanding, to AI, >but none has been developed which can come close to Kasparov in chess. >I don't know if I'm adding anything new to the discussion here, but it >seems to me that there are two fundamental points which need to be >nailed down. First that it is possible for a task such as chess to be >solvable in different ways human intelligence and computational brute >force can both be perfectly qualified approaches, but their both being >succesfull does not make them equal nor even necessarily similar. Second >that not all computers approach problem solving in the same way, some >use brute force, point systems memory and far-sightedness, some use >"learning" algorithms and neural nets, some use both. But it is >important to note that the one which has beyond any doubt lent >superiority to the computer over the average or indeed any human is the >first attribute, brute force. This is not intelligence, and nobody says >it is. Using the word intelligence in it's defenition therefore, is a >mistake. Which is not to say that computers don't play a damn good game >of chess. >---pedro That's why we call it "artificial intelligence". It looks like sugar, it tastes like sugar, but when you chemically analyze it, it ain't sugar. So we don't call it "sugar" we call it a 'artificial sugar" or a 'sugar substitute'... produces the same basic effect as sugar, but maybe in a different 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.