Author: Oliver Y.
Date: 20:02:33 01/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 10, 1999 at 19:01:17, Graham Laight wrote: >On January 10, 1999 at 09:04:50, Oliver Y. wrote: > >>I have drawn a number of games against human masters, down a piece with little >>or no compensation whatsoever. >> >>Earlier posts about true sacrifices might be related to this topic, and I >>apologize in the unlikely event that I am duplicating an old discussion. >> >>I think current programs are particularly bad at having a chance at swindling to >>save completely lost positions. >> >>If there's any interest, I can post two games where I was down a piece, >> >>a) I further sacked an exchange, so I'm down a rook; then I exchange my queen >>for his 2 rooks and a knight..eventually I wind up with a mate in one using a >>rook, bishop, and knight against his queen and bishop...which I miss in time >>trouble. >> >>b) I sack another piece for some pressure, all along I am dead lost, so this >>game score would be an embarrassment to the FIDE 2250+ master to post... >>He blunders, and I have a won position, which I promptly turn into a perpetual >>mate due to time pressure. >> >>Sorry, I guess I should just post the games already...but there's really no way >>in the next 20 years you'll see programs finding effective swindles against >>humans... >> >>That would be a true sign of Artificial Intelligence, IMMHO. > >I disagree with Oliver. > >Winning a lost position does not require special intelligence - rather it >requires a mistake by the opponent. Firstly, you are obfuscating the matter by using the term special. Secondly, it most certainly requires intelligence to win a lost position. Your last clause is redundant--show me a single game where you can prove that no mistake has been made. Allow me to simplify. Can you tell if this post is composed by a computer or a human? Assume you are watching a game where the contestant who is currently losing is hidden, so that you do not know whether it is a computer or a human. The opponent that is visible to you is not perfect, so you can have either a human or a computer in that role. The hidden player makes moves in a manner that fools the visible imperfect player into a loss or a draw, from a totally lost position--so a successful swindle(s) has occurred. Surely you would conclude that there was evidence of intelligence displayed by this hidden opponent, would you not? Moreover, if the hidden opponent made moves that no current program would seriously consider, you would be inclined to believe that it was a human player, correct? If you cannot distinguish between a human or a computer, then any computer that could make such a display would be considered to possess intelligence. I hope I did not bore you with this wholly unoriginal explanation. Am I a computer generated post, or a human generated one, Graham? Daisy, Daisy, ....
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.