Author: Robin Smith
Date: 16:16:20 03/20/01
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2001 at 01:50:10, Christophe Theron wrote: >That's it. > >Let me give another example, for which I have fought here for quite some time. > >If a player A is better than player B at fast time controls, I just begin to >assume that player A will be better than player B at longer time controls. > >From that point, if I notice that it might not always be the case, I might work >to provide evidence that it is not the case. > >But my first idea is to keep things simple and see if it works. So I would first >assume that time controls do not matter. I change my mind and add complexity to >my model only if I can prove that my "simpler" model does not work. > >I do that because I noticed a long time ago that general concepts are much more >powerful. A general concept (or "idea" or "principle") is one you can apply in a >large number of cases. So I try to keep my ideas as general as possible. It >hurts me when I have to add special cases to an otherwise "clean" (simple) >model. Christophe, I believe your assumption here is generally correct. The principle even has a name, "Occams razor" named after a philosopher and theologian, William of Occam, who lived ~700 hunderd years ago. But I do have good evidence that in at least one case, Fritz5.32, it is not. I am convinced Fritz5 is much weaker than comparable programs when playing at super long time controls. My guess is this is probably due to heavy use of root processing. But starting first with the simplest assumptions makes excellent sense. >I do not know what to do with the concept of "conscience". I don't need it to >cover a hole in the big picture of "intelligence", and it explains nothing >anyway. Worse: those who talk about it find it mysterious and impossible to >explain. Correct. It is similar to trying to explain vision to a person blind since birth, you can explain the mechanics, but not what it is like, on a subjective level, to be able to see a beautiful flower. Unless you share the experience, just explaining the mechanics doesn't explain everything. > So in short it raises questions you cannot answer, or that you do not >need to answer! I fail to see how it helps me to understand anything about >"intelligence" (a concept supposed to be closely related). > >So I just drop it for now... Let me know if you want to take it up again later. Robin
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.