Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 02:35:16 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 05:25:37, Andrew Dados wrote: >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. >> >>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 > >I doubt chess domain is wide enough for 'generalization' here. If a program >could learn Thai chess in 5 min as all chess-playing humans do I would attribute >it some 'intelligence'. Why do they have to do as fast or play as well to be intelligent? Those are standards for being "as intelligent" rather than simply being intelligent. A chimp can't learn to play Thai chess, but they are still intelligent. > >For now traversing Shannon tree with huge speeds and evaluation function >'correct' in 99,96% or so I call 'good craftsmanship'. > >-Andrew-
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.