Author: José Carlos
Date: 14:21:47 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2002 at 14:33:22, Roy Eassa wrote: > >But aren't humans just vastly more complex machines? That's an interesting topic, but I'm afraid off topic here. I basically agree with you, but I believe most people don't. If we are more complex machines, my point is still valid for computers, but then it also appies to humans! Difficult to say, actually... I don't believe in soul, gods or things like that, so I believe our brain is a incredibly complex computer. So complex to ask itself 'what am I?' José C. >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.