Author: Matthew Hull
Date: 10:10:47 01/30/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2003 at 12:58:29, Graham Laight wrote: >Our favourite chess match of the week is the subject of the TOP ARTICLE in this >week's Economist (which has just come out on the web), in which they make the >case that chess playing ability does not represent intelligence. Of course - >followers of AI will know that as a computer masters an ability, that skill no >longer qualifies as intelligence. Until there's nothing left that humans can do >better than computers! :) > ><Quote> >THE idea that chess-playing skill is a proxy for machine intelligence is not >new. It goes back as far as 1770, when Wolfgang von Kempelen, a Hungarian >inventor, unveiled a wooden, clockwork-powered mannekin at the court of Maria >Theresa, Empress of Austria-Hungary. This machine, known as the Turk because of >its exotic costume, could play chess, moving the pieces with a mechanical arm >and defeating even the best human players. It was, of course, a trick—a hidden >human operator controlled the automaton's movements—but some observers equated >its chess prowess with intelligence. ></Quote> > >To read the rest of the article, click here --> >http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=1559988 Perhaps a distinction should be made. They way humans go about solving a problem at the board does require intelligence in the classical sense. However, they way in which computers go about solving the problem has everything to do with the intelligence of the programmers, and nothing to do with the supposed intelligence of the adding machine that's running a chess program or the chess program itself. A procedure has no intelligence of it's own. All the intelligence is with the one arranging the procedure. Regards, Matt
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.