Author: Uri Blass
Date: 17:32:49 04/06/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 06, 2005 at 18:29:07, Steven Edwards wrote: >From: http://www-formal.stanford.edu/jmc/whatisai/node1.html > ><Quote> >Q. What about chess? > >A. Alexander Kronrod, a Russian AI researcher, said ``Chess is the Drosophila >of AI.'' He was making an analogy with geneticists' use of that fruit fly to >study inheritance. Playing chess requires certain intellectual mechanisms and >not others. Chess programs now play at grandmaster level, but they do it with >limited intellectual mechanisms compared to those used by a human chess player, > substituting large amounts of computation for understanding. Once we >understand these mechanisms better, we can build human-level chess programs >that do far less computation than do present programs. > >Unfortunately, the competitive and commercial aspects of making computers play >chess have taken precedence over using chess as a scientific domain. It is as >if the geneticists after 1910 had organized fruit fly races and concentrated >their efforts on breeding fruit flies that could win these races. > ></Quote> This is reply to Anthony Cozzie but I guess that his post may be deleted(inspite of the fact that I did not complain about it because his post include personal attack against you and not only disagreement with your opinions) so I decided to respond to your post and not to his post. 1)There is no generally accepted theory of how humans play chess. 2)This is Anthony's theory that humans do more computations. I see no evidence for it. 3)Humans do AB-search and when they see that an alternative is worse they do not spend time to calculate exact value of it. 4)Steven Edwards did not claim that authors of chess engines are morons or that all chess engines are stupidly simple but only that the authors do not try to do things that humans do. Uri
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.