Author: Graham Laight
Date: 17:48:00 01/11/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 11, 1999 at 08:45:58, Oliver Y. wrote:
>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?
I am an honest man - I have never beaten a master at all.
>If so, could you imagine any computer ever being able to duplicate your efforts?
I like to think I have vision - I can imagine a computer duplicating any of my
thought processes.
>>>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.
What's the widely accepted definition of "such intelligence"?
>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: :^)
I identify the program as Nintendo 64 Virtual Clown. :-)
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.