Author: Steffen Jakob
Date: 05:10:03 12/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 16, 1999 at 04:13:55, Tom Kerrigan wrote: >On December 16, 1999 at 02:21:46, Michael Neish wrote: >>I'm as interested in computer Chess as the next person, >>I suppose, and it would do my motivation no harm at all >>to know whether there are any practical applications to >>the techniques used for Chess programming. So, are >>these techniques so specialised that they are useful >>only within the game of Chess and not to any real >>applications (or even to other games)? Does computer >>Chess come under the category of AI anyway? Has AI >>research gained anything from Chess, or vice-versa? > >I think the "mindset" of a chess programmer can be useful to solve other >problems. For example, counting doubled pawns is obviously only useful in chess, >but a chess programmer can approach a new problem and think, "is there anything >I can do that's similar to counting doubled pawns?" > >IMHO, a computer playing chess is obviously artifically intelligent. I think >everybody will agree that it takes intelligence to play chess, and computers >quite clearly play chess. Now, I'm not saying they're creative or clever or >human-like, but I think they're clearly displaying some intelligence. Tom, would you say that an engine which knows the chess rules but makes completely random moves shows intelligence? I dont think so. If not, would you say that an engine which knows the chess rules, has alpha beta and a random eval function shows intelligence? Here the answer is not so clear, because this engine will play good chess if you give it enough time (mobility, bla bla ...). So what makes an engine intelligent? The fact that it makes "good" moves or the fact that it makes good moves because of some human-like knowledge? Greetings, Steffen.
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.