Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:56:21 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 04:11:29, Torstein Hall wrote: > >I have always belived intelligence in humans had to do with the ability to adapt >to new cirumstanses ( how do you spell that? ) in a fast and efficent way. For >instanse you could change the rules in chess a little bit, and the one adapting >with success to the new rules would be the most intelligent under the >circumstances. >Under such a definition of intelligence, I can not see why we should call >computer chess AI. ( Try to change the rules and check how well the Crafty and >Fritzes of this world are doing.... :-) ). Depends on how you change the rules. IE crafty doesn quite well at all sorts of wild games, fischer-random (without castling) and so forth. I have been asked by a GM (you wouldn't believe who if I told you so I won't just yet) to implement Fischer-random for him with castling working, and it isn't very hard to do, just a little kludge for castling generation which isn't used after castling happens anyway. If you mean things like 10x10 chess with a new piece, then computers will have great trouble without a lot of programming. However, I know a _lot_ of people that don't change very easily either. :) Either they aren't intelligent, or computers are to an extent. :) >Intelligence should be intelligense even if its artificial! > >Torstein > > > > >On December 16, 1999 at 23:19:42, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On December 16, 1999 at 21:17:46, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>A similar thread brings up an interesting question, "What is AI?" >>> >>>An old test was supposed to be that if we are playing a remote opponent we can't >>>tell if it is a human or a machine. I think that can probably be achieved now >>>(especially if we throw in a bit of randomness). >> >>Actually a computer probably can't pass at chess. Computers find mates way >>too quickly. They make stupid mistakes in known 'trap' positions. Yes you >>could kludge a fix for the mates too quickly, but it is not hard to catch >>a computer with that kind of analysis... unfortunately. I doubt that is >>what Turing had in mind, of course. But this was a discussion I had in 1984 >>with a non-computer-scientist. And he uncovered Cray Blitz just this way. :) >> >> >>> >>>Then what tends to happen is that we say, "That's not really artificial >>>intelligence. After all, it's just a machine, so it _can't_ be." We simply >>>move the target and we are safe from the encroachment of the machine into "our" >>>domain. >>> >> >> >>AI has two common definitions: >> >>(1) doing something that requires intelligence by a human to do. IE play >>the game of chess. But as soon as someone sees how easy this is to do, >>this gets changed to: >> >>(2) doing something that requires intelligence by a human to do. And it has >>to be done in a way that is very similar to the way the human does it. IE in >>chess, if a human considers 100 positions to choose a move, then the program has >>to do approximately the same. (2) is often used when it becomes obvious that >>(1) was much easier than anyone once thought. :) >> >> >> >> >> >> >>>If (for instance) I was playing some opponent using Winboard and I only knew it >>>was one of: >>>"Kasparov" >>>"Deep Blue" >>> >>>I would have no way of guessing which was which, since either one would pound my >>>stuffings out effortlessly. >> >> >>Yes you would. Give them both a mate in 15 position. DB will find it way >>quicker. :) >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>>So the question stands, "What is AI?" and along with it, the related question, >>>"Are chess programs intelligent?" >> >> >>Depends on which side of the fence you sit on. :)
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.