Author: Mark Young
Date: 04:30:55 07/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 02, 2001 at 07:00:43, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >On July 02, 2001 at 03:24:14, Mark Young wrote: > >>I don't think anykind of chess program no matter how well it plays is a big >>achievement in A.I. Chess is 100% tactical, and one big finite tree. What is >>amazing is how well humans can play the game, not computers. Chess, Checkers, is >>simple. Go is harder, but just a bigger Tree. >> >>For me the Real A. I. test for computers is not any of those games. >> >>Poker is a true test for computer A. I. in terms of games. IMO. > > >I agree with you that Chess is very tactical game (let's say 95 %) , but if you >say that it's not an achievement to have chess programs playing like GM for the >artificial intelligence science you are simply saying that no intelligence is >needed to play chess...and as you stated before is instead needed to play poker. >:) That is exactly what I am saying...no intelligence is needed to play chess. It can be solved by pure calculation. That however is not how humans approch the game. Humans use their intelligence as a short cut...computers use mostly calculation. Since calculation can bring you the same degree of understanding computer can perform as Grandmasters. However computers programs are using no real intelligence. Poker posses a more difficult challenges to a computer’s A. I., as judgment and understanding can not be mimicked by calculation alone. Since poker is not always won by having a superior position, or in this case the strongest hand.
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.