Author: Otello Gnaramori
Date: 11:11:19 12/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 2001 at 12:17:02, Christophe Theron wrote: >On December 26, 2001 at 08:10:41, Otello Gnaramori wrote: > >> >>One of the things to come out of the effort to build chess programs is that >>games like chess require very little "intelligence". > > > >Yes and no. > >1) once some piece of "intelligence" has been identified and included into a >chess program in the form of an evaluation factor or an algorithm, we just stop >considering this as "intelligence". I would call it "knowledge" , not "intelligence" . So "intelligence" is like horizon: you >believe you have made a step toward it, but realize it is still as far as >before. Our definition of intelligence is not only fuzzy, it changes constantly >as we are making progress in IT. Computer Chess is probably one of the main >contribution in our change of mind about what "intelligence" is. > I agree with you, and I would like to report a quote from Simon after the match between Deep Blue and Kasparov : "The New York Times ran a post-mortem of the Deep-Blue-Kasparov Chess match today, quoting various notables (Simon,Searle, Hofstadter, Gelernter, and others) on the question of whether the machine was "really" intelligent. Simon said it was, but the consensus among most of the others was that Deep Blue's relative success merely indicated that chess, contrary to expectation, requires no intelligence ..." >2) the kind of intelligence that is missing in today's programs (and I regret >very much that people starting to work in chess to not try to work on this) is >the ability to extract knowledge by itself and re-use it later. If chess >programs were doing this, you would not say that chess requires very little >intelligence. But you know that they don't, so you feel safe saying that chess >requires no intelligence. I still believe that chess requires intelligence for a >human player. In other words, without intelligence human players could not >become as strong as they are at chess. Playing successful chess is IMHO the product of the predisposition for spatial forms allied with an exceptional memory ...think about the mnemonic virtuosity needed to play blindfold of the top players. > >1 and 2 is the reason why I believe that today's chess programs are a dead end. >They represent a high level of technology, but this technology leads to nothing >else than strong chess. > Never say never... ;) w.b.r. Otello
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.