Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 05:08:28 01/25/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2005 at 07:39:14, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 25, 2005 at 07:31:16, George Tsavdaris wrote: > >>On January 25, 2005 at 06:31:30, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 25, 2005 at 06:08:05, George Tsavdaris wrote: >>> >>>>On January 25, 2005 at 01:57:43, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>56...Nh5+. I suspect that most strong engines will easily be able to see the >>>>>>>forced mate in this position. The King sees Mate in 10 in less than one second. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>But it certainly wouldn't take an "exceptional human" to beat DF8 in a 5-minute >>>>>>>game when it was only playing on a Celeron 500. Any IM would have a reasonable >>>>>>>chance at it, and perhaps even a Master could get lucky. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>jm >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Not so sure about this, remember genius 3 on pentium 90 won a game/25 tourney >>>>>>over strong grandmasters, computers are known to be even stronger at faster time >>>>>>controls, another factor is that genius was 200 points below top programs. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I doubt if it is correct at fast blitz. >>>>>Fritz was never tested seriously at 1 minute/game on slow hardware. >>>>> >>>>> Anand >>>>>>Lost a blitz match to rebel 10 running on Amd 450. I doubt a 1900 can suceceed >>>>>>were Super Grandmastes have failed. >>>>> >>>>>I am sure 1900 player have chances to win a blitz game against stupid program >>>>>like Fritz8. >>>> >>>> Why do you say Fritz 8 a stupid program? I don't say it's more intelligent than >>>>humans in many areas of the Chess game, but it can beat 0.9999% of them(us) for >>>>sure and with the other 0.0001% of humans that remains, the game is equal. So >>>>judging from the result and only we can't say Fritz 8 is stupid........ >>> >>>You do not need intelligence to beat 0.9999% of the humans. >> >>Hmmm, i can't understand you here. What do you need? Luck? >>If you can win the 0.9999% of the Chess-playing humans then i think it is true >>that you have a type of high intelligence, although a different one from that >>humans have........... > >The question is how do you define intelligence. > Yeah you're right. I knew you would say that. I define intelligence according to the final result only. If something succeeds in something more than someone else, then i say that the first one is more clever in that area from the second one without care how it succeeded. I'm not wrong because others or most of people define intelligence with another way, i just define it such way. But really this is the easiest definition of "intelligence" we could have without getting to complicated statements. >The ability to calculate a lot of calculation in a short time is not what I call >intelligence but this together with some simple algorithm is enough to beat most >humans. > Yes, and since this whole "huge calculation ability+ playing rules" beat humans, i say that the "huge calculation ability+ playing rules" has a type of intelligence higher than that of humans. As this "...." beats the intelligence of humans. But at the end, it doesn't matter how we define intelligence, it only matters the result............ And if we accept this and we don't accept my definition, we arrive to the conclusion that a stupid thing wins something(humans) that is much more clever! So we should give to the machines a recognition of intelligence, whatever type is this, after all........... And finally even by saying Fritz 8 is stupid, even if we don't use my definition for intelligence, we should not care much, since it beats most of humans. But of course now we can think that if it was "clever" on such positions, it would be even more effective in winning. And this is what all programmers try to do. To find ways "improving play" by human means, that would cover as many positions possible.
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.