Author: Andrew Dados
Date: 02:53:07 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 05:35:16, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. Indeed. So let's say learn thai chess in 20 years :) Or create some other game. Or _develop_ some idea of 'beauty' or 'goal'. Somehow intelligent means 'transcendent' to me. And while chess program can play chess I would expect it to be able to play Thai chess, too. Or to learn that N+R vs R is dead draw after few games. Or to prepare against given opponent. Or study openings on its own. > >> >>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.