Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 18:53:46 02/11/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 11, 2004 at 20:36:38, Paul Doire wrote: >Hi Bob, > >My two cents for what it is worth. It would seem clearly if this objective could >be obtained...it would have been obtained....coulda woulda??!! >Some say Junior emulates human play, some say others emulate human play. >AI is a key ingredient, and IMHO true AI would be aware of the environment, >the setting, the pressure...just like a human would be...it would not be >impervious to the surroundings like the pile of silicon that it is. As you >already know, the strength of the programs is in sheer calculations. >GM's select candidate move through a learned process...eliminating what appears >to be futile "trees". They certainly do this far better than computers. >That is the weakness of computers, as I am also sure you already know. >It appears to me that even the newest batch of programs "newfound strength" >comes from an ability to be more selective in its tree..i.e. they are gaining >knowledge. >But, unfortunately they cannot think, and are at the mercy of the current >"state of the art" in the best way to mathematically eliminate "wrong moves". >It is a start most certainly, but it is still based on calculations...and raw >processing power still rules..i.e. Crafty in CCT-6. Some are smarter than >others due to things that I will not pretend to understand fully...null moves, >futility pruning, selectivity... and much more beyond my grasp. >I am not a chess programmer, just a chess enthusiast who loves to test those >engines and their progress. I have been watching and playing these engines for a >little while and they do not understand anything except to play their books and >to follow up with a mathematical examination of what is appropriate for the >situation. They will still make the same mistake over and over...albeit >"learning" has certainly helped that from being so obnoxiously obvious. >We are still so far from this goal it is almost scary. Geez we are the ones in >charge ...right? Right now to this enthusiast it doesn't appear on the horizon >for your wish to become a reality. It sort of reminds me of when Professor Hyatt >states time and time again just how strong a human GM really is. Computers make >up for what they lack in "humanness" by brute force. There has even been talk >about when "brute force calculating power is strong enough ..hardware wise," >that it won't be necessary to have to be so selective in the searches...just >CRUNCH and we will win. That is not human play...we are so far away...and I am >rambling now. >I enjoy your posts, and your exuberance for your beliefs..thank you for your >contributions to CCC. >Regards, >Paul Thanks, Paul. Note that this is not the first bulletin I've posted on this and related topics. In some bulletins, I have taken my shots at how such could be achieved. I only hope the right people read them and didn't laugh too loud. 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.