Author: Peter Berger
Date: 17:15:52 11/02/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 02, 2002 at 20:04:07, Bob Durrett wrote: >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???] No, we are not. You gave a very good, although unethical experiment to test your own hypothesis, namely to emulate a human player with a chessprogram on ICC - if ICC and other players payed attention to this account, this would be a good and valid experiment to test if computers are able to play human-like IMHO. > >> >>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. No Rolf, I didn't say that at all. I have posted zilch about playing strength and in fact I don't even have a clear opinion about this topic at all myself. IMHO the much more interesting experiment would be to emulate a 1800 human player in fact - here playing strength is a no-issue but the principal problems remain the same. > >> >>> >>>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.] I didn't - my English is not that good. But I understand it now. Peter
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.