Author: Torstein Hall
Date: 11:25:29 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 11:56:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: <SNIP> >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. Trust me I would belive you no doubt! Who was the GM? :-) Torstein PS. And by the way. I think its difficult to agree on what AI meens, but would you call a person intelligent if he only could play chess? :-) > >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.