Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 11:33:22 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
But aren't humans just vastly more complex machines? On February 19, 2002 at 09:24:07, José Carlos wrote: > As it has been brought up again and I didn't give my opinion in the past, I'd >like to say what I think about all of that. > In times of Fritz 2/3, Chris was against this fast-dumb philosophy. He >proposed, and then implemented, something that was meant to be in the opposite >side, this is, slow-smart. This was his 'new paradigm' then. And it seems >nowadays that top programs are joining the not-so-fast-but-smarter philosophy, >so he was right. > The users have normally a very different point of view than the programmers. >Programmers _know_ that any program (not only chess ones) is nothing but a >secuence of mathematical calculations. In the very end, some 1's and 0's and the >hardware they 'dance' in. > But the users tend to see the program as if it was a person. Tend to used >words like 'creativity', 'aggresiveness', 'passiveness', and so on. Programs >don't have those characteristics, they only _seem_ to have some of them. But as >I said, in the end, it's nothing but a mathematical calculation that choses this >or that move. Believing that a program can be 'creative' is like believing that >it rains because the clouds are sad and cry: poetry, romanticism, creation of >myths. > Don't get me wrong, I don't say I like nor dislike poetry, that's not the >topic I'm trying to discuss (actually, I'm a lover of Tal's art), what I'm >saying is that that don't apply to computers. That's all. > After that, Thorsten, with his passionate and human point of view, created a >myth around this new paradigm, seeing in CSTal games things he had never seen in >other programs games, and though they happened for reasons they didn't. And I >understand him for doing that, it's difficult to resist. > But when I read Chris' post, I read the key words 'tree', 'prunning', >'search', 'nodes', ... Those words prove he was doing exactly the same: >searching a game-tree. He might use a different algorithm; he might use >different heuristics; whatever else. But after all, he's doing the same, find a >path in a game-tree. > I think it is good to distinguish between fast-dumb and slow-smart, and that >they can be cosidered two paradigms in computer chess programming, at least, two >schools (I don't know if this direct translation is correct in english). But >magic doesn't exist. It's all about 1's and 0's... > > José C.
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.