Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 17:04:07 11/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2002 at 19:47:10, Peter Berger wrote: >On November 02, 2002 at 18:12:26, Bob Durrett wrote: >>>>: ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) : ) >>>> >>>>Bob D. >>>> >>> >>>That's a Turing Test and there is nothing funny about it IMHO. I don't know how >>>good and professional the "Cheater Cops" at ICC do their job but if you really >>>managed to let everybody believe that your chessengine is a human player of >>>course this would mean that your engine really plays human-like IMHO. >>> >>>Peter >> >>I know the Turing Test is Sacred among AI people. It is absolutely taboo to say >>anything bad about it. However, it is fatally flawed! It falsely assumes that >>the human mind is the ultimate thinking machine. Typical of the human ego to >>think that! > >How has that anything to do with what I posted? Perhaps I misunderstood you. I thought you said [paraphrased]: "There is nothing funny about the Turing Test IMHO." [Are we communicating???] > >I don't think there is any chessprogram that can really emulate a strong human >chessplayer so that it will fool a reasonable amount of humans at expert level, >that's it. That's all I posted , that's all I wanted to discuss. OK. But there's not much to discuss about that with me, since I agree with you 100%. Today's chess engines are not yet stronger than the top human GM. We agree. Maybe others would have different ideas about this than ours. Bob D. > >> >>As an aside: Would you say that a lightning bolt did not exist if no one saw or >>heard it? > >As I don't even know what a lightning bolt is, that is beyond my abilities. It's an electrical discharge involving the motion of an extremely large number of electrons between two clouds or between a cloud and the Earth's surface. [You knew that.] Bob D.
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.