Author: Antonio Dieguez
Date: 15:57:43 02/19/02
Go up one level in this thread
On February 19, 2002 at 17:21:47, José Carlos wrote: >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, and your girlfriend is a machine too? > 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.