Author: Tony Werten
Date: 00:33:19 12/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 2001 at 14:11:19, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >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" . Me too. I think Christophe is talking about a program that learns when to use what knowledge. Which would be closer to intelligence. Tony > >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.