Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Knowledge is not elegant.

Author: Don Dailey

Date: 20:42:14 06/14/98

Go up one level in this thread

On June 14, 1998 at 15:49:35, Fernando Villegas wrote:

>Deart Don: I think all your post, enterily, show very clearly the biased
>and -I believe- wrong way to understand knowledege manyb programmers and
>customer have. They tends to assimilate knowledge with the acumulation
>of knowledege, and is not. That is erudition, data acumulation, etc.
>Real Knowledege is not unelegant is not a heap of knowledege, but on the
>contrary is to know the simples way to get something to be done. So,
>programs will be knowledhgeable no when they stock in his memories the
>total amount of theroy and rules of thumbs, etc, but on the contraru
>cqwith very simple methods they can grasp the sence of a ches game, that
>is, what is happening, what is relevant in the total conmplx of pieces
> Do you think capablanca played like a God because he knew all the
>rules? Sure he knew a lot, but the point to any chess player with some
>degree of understanding is that Capablanca just implemented simple but
>very efficient algoryhtms. A master that is my friend explained to me
>how Capablanca examined a game: instead of beginning from a position and
>then performing moves, one after another, he said "this is a position we
>must reach" and after putting the pices in that ideal position, he then
>returned to the first position and looked for the moves to reach there.
>Do you see the point? That is understanding. Thta is elegance. Sure,
>neither elegance nor understanding will be get just piling rules. Is
>something else. Maybe the program should be capable to identify
>positions from a huge table of positions and then formulate what piece
>of his code to implement, what moves to look, what he must look for?

Hi Fernando,

I agree with all you said.  In case you didn't notice, that post
was very "tongue in cheek", do you know that expression?  It was
basically a joke, and I attempted to mix some sarcasm in too.

Having said that, I still do believe that what I said was
basically correct.  Knowledge AND understanding  are tied
together.  And I believe they both require brute force.

I believe the human mind is an extreme example of BRUTE FORCE
and do not believe a device as simple as todays computers have
any chance of attaining Thorstens goal of matching human prowess.
It will be much better at some tasks, but asking it to be human
is to fit a square peg into a round hole.  Very soon it will
outperform humans at chess, but it will do it a different way,
a way that uses it's own unique abilities instead of trying
to imitate us blindly with hardware that is far inferior to ours.

When the day comes when computers clearly outperform all humans,
I will be asking you the question, which machine is really the one
using brute force?   You will be forced to admit a lot more is
going on in the human head, but it's playing much weaker chess.

In fact for the vast majority of human chess players, I could
already ask that question.

- Don

This page took 0.03 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.