Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:05:11 12/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 17, 1999 at 14:25:29, Torstein Hall wrote: >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 There is already a 'hint' in my post. It is hard enough to believe that I am not quite ready to start another rumor war here. :) > >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? :-) > Based on some of the things I have seen _here_, the answer would be _no_. :) > >> >>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.