Author: Dan Homan
Date: 07:51:52 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 That is like saying that it takes intelligence to solve a system of partial differential equations therefore algorithms that can do so are artificially intelligent. It is all how you define intelligence. If intelligence is simply the ability to solve a particular type of problem, then lots of things have intelligence (including your washing machine). I think intelligence is something deeper.... but I am having a hard time defining it. I think it has to do with general purpose problem solving which itself requires the ability to learn and adapt to new kinds of problems. I think a measure of intelligence is the breadth of new (and unexpected) problems that a machine/algorithm can learn to preform well at. (Any specific problem that an algorithm naturally preforms well at doesn't count - such a problem is solved by 'instinct'.) The wider the range of problems, the smarter the machine/algorithm. On this scale, some chess programs would be more intelligent than others - but the least intelligent ones (no learning) might play the best chess. - Dan P.S. Please note that with such a measure of intelligence, a program could be very knowledgable but not very intelligent if it had no ability to learn. >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
This page took 0.01 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.