Author: Roberto Nerici
Date: 04:25:54 03/29/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 29, 2004 at 06:17:15, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 29, 2004 at 05:48:37, Steven Edwards wrote: > >>See: http://mitpress.mit.edu/e-books/Hal/chap5/five1.html >> >>Any comments on the second paragraph? > >You mean this piece: > >"The question of whether HAL's chess ability demonstrates intelligence boils >down to a question of how HAL plays chess. If, on the one hand, HAL plays chess >in the "human style" -- employing explicit reasoning about move choices and >large amounts of chess knowledge -- the computer can be said to demonstrate some >aspects of intelligence. If, on the other hand, HAL plays chess in the computer >style -- that is, if HAL uses his computational power to carry out brute-force >searches through millions or billions of possible alternatives, using relatively >little knowledge or reasoning capabilities -- then HAL's chess play is not a >sign of intelligence. " I've got this book; IMO it's a good book. It uses the Hal Legacy narrative as an excuse to bring together a collection of individual articles that are otherwise not really related, but which I found interesting. I wouldn't have read any of them (apart from maybe the chess one) in more specialised collections. But back to the chess bit! If I remember correctly, Murray Campbell's point is based on the observation that Hal plays a non-optimum "trappy" move. The intelligence is that it knows a very effective move _to make againt Dave_ (or whoever it's playing) because it knows Dave and it knows the kind of mistakes he makes, rather than it just making the theoretical "best" move. Roberto/.
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.