Author: Oliver Y.
Date: 05:45:58 01/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 1999 at 05:59:37, Graham Laight wrote:
>
>On January 10, 1999 at 23:02:33, Oliver Y. wrote:
>
>>On January 10, 1999 at 19:01:17, Graham Laight wrote:
>>
>>>On January 10, 1999 at 09:04:50, Oliver Y. wrote:
>>>
>
>{snip}
>
>>>>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.
>
>Guilty as charged.
>
>I often correct other people's English, so I must accept the criticisms when
>they are levelled at me.
>
>>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?
>
>I assume you're human because computers don't write stuff like this yet.
>
>However, I'm sure you'll agree that the ability to write stuff like this does
>not mean that you're any good at chess.
Graham, have you ever drawn or beaten a master, down a piece for at least 10
moves, without a shade of compensation?
If so, could you imagine any computer ever being able to duplicate your efforts?
>>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?
>
>Agreed.
>
>>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.
>
>Not at all.
>
>What you appear to be saying is that, in the "special" situation of being in a
>losing position, one should value a move which creates confusion in the opponent
>more highly than the move which scores the highest in terms of leading to the
>"least worst" position possible - the normal criteria for evaluation.
I am not making a value judgement, but you are following what I am describing as
a necessary component of intelligence.
>You are further saying that the ability to do this is a sign of intelligence.
>
>Given that there is no widely accepted concrete definition of intelligence, I
There is a widely accepted definition of such intelligence, I did not refer to
it because greater clarity is achieved by having you think through what I said.
am
>inclined to agree with you - especially if the system takes the nature of the
>opponent into account.
If you agree, then I have achieved one small step. I would welcome comments
also from others...
>Sometimes, computers swindle a draw when they are beaten by using their own form
>of intelligence - finding moves that the opponent had overlooked. Witness games
>3,4, and 5 in DB v GK. This is a frequent experience for me when I play
>computers as well.
What you are describing above is not intelligence, no matter what Garry says.
>>Am I a computer generated post, or a human generated one, Graham?
>
>Clearly human. Which some members of the species might find unfortunate... :-)
An inappropriately timed insult has no effect, I suspect you are a human.
I have been programmed to display the following: :^)
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.