Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 01:01:12 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 03:20:07, Bruce Moreland wrote: >On March 13, 2001 at 19:06:27, HECTOR MUNOZ wrote: > >>There are some who might argue that a computer chess program is not a >>demonstration of intelligence in particular, a program which uses Shannon's >>Type A Approach. I need to present a solid argument that such a program >>does involve intelligence. > >Everyone tries to answer this question without figuring out what they mean by >"intelligence" first. > >The OED definition takes the better part of a page, and gives various usages >dating back to 1390, although some aspects of the word are extremely new. In >particular, the use of the term "intelligence quotient" is said to date back >only to 1921, as expressed in English. That's the part of the definition that >gets everyone tied up in knots these days. > >The first definition is "[t]he faculty of understanding; intellect." The second >one is "[u]nderstanding as a quality of admitting of degree; spec. superior >understanding; quickness of mental apprehension, sagacity." The others don't >seem to apply much. > >I don't think the dictionary is very helpful here. This word seems too large >for the dictionary. Perhaps someone has written a book or an article that gets >to the point, but failing that, I'll take a crack at it, as it relates to >computer programs. > >I believe that intelligence is displayed if a program can generalize effectively >within a sufficiently complex problem domain. It's not enough to be able to >handle specific cases, it must be possible to be effective in a wide variety of >cases, via the use of general-purpose code. Thats an interesting definition Bruce. I agree that chess programs show some sort of intelligence, I'd call it a domain specific intelligence. I think that general intelligence involves the ability to solve problems in pretty much any domain (after a suitable learning period). > >Chess, a game that has fascinated humans for hundreds of years in its current >form, and much longer if we allow for precursor forms, seems like it would >qualify as a sufficiently difficult domain. Humans devote their lives to the >game and the game remains fresh and challenging. > >I believe that the current programs generalize very well. They can play >essentially any position. There are some that cause them problems, but there >are a great many that they play well enough to challenge a strong human when the >human plays against the program, and they can be used even by very strong humans >in order to provide insight in very difficult positions. These positions are >rarely foreseen by the program's author, but the program is still very >effective. > >I think that intelligence is essentially the ability to effectively handle >difficult specific cases with general-purpose methods, and the chess domain, >while very specific, is rich enough that it requires the ability to generalize >in order to tackle the wide variety of practical cases a program is apt to face. > >Copyright (C) Bruce Moreland, 2001. All rights reserved. Permission to use all >or part of the above in a homework assignment is given only under the condition >that any quotation is accurately attributed. :-) :-) :-) > >bruce
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.