Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:06:53 01/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 20, 2005 at 20:16:07, Steve B wrote: > > My own personal opinion is >>that beautiful chess isn't necessarily winning chess. Computers seek to play >>winning chess, regardless of aesthetics. The fact that human beings see a >>particular move as beautiful means nothing in the brutal logic of the chess >>tree, but instead reflects the biases of our own neural networks, which often >>over-emphasize heuristics because they just don't have the horsepower to do >>anything else. > >i can agree with this >but i would add that chess was first chosen as a worthy subject by the early AI >programers because of the desire to learn more about how we humans think >winning has nothing to do with this >and today program's do not even remotely choose a move they way humans do and >they tell us very little about how we think >we simply have gotten far afield I think that the biggest problem to make a computer play in a human like manner is that the computer will also have to have emotion. When you are playing against a good player and he offers you his knight -- how do you feel? For me, my heart will start to thunder! What is he up to?! Is it a blunder? What does he see that I am missing? I am very sure that it will change my play somewhat. How about you? So to emulate human play so that it truly plays like a human you will also have to be able to scare the computer or give it a chuckle or perhaps make it feel sorry for you and underpromote a few bishops until you resign.
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.