Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 03:40:35 03/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 14, 2001 at 05:53:07, Andrew Dados wrote: >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. "I would expect" humans could play virtually all 5-man endgames perfectly or play sharp open positions as well as a computer, but they don't. So are humans then not intelligent? I don't like the idea of imposing too high a standard or making the standard antho-centric. That to me seems like "rigging" the standard so computers will fail to meet it. > >> >>> >>>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.