Re:Please, Deep Blue is not AI, chess is a limited
on
Behind Deep Blue
·
· Score: 1
However there is also another school of thought, which points out the lie in your statement
Does this 'school of thought' actually, you know, 'exist'? Like in the 'real world', as opposed to in your mind. If so, I'd like to know more about it - do you have any references you could point me to?
In chess, strategy is equally important to board condition
In the context of talking about whether the game of chess is a theoretical win or draw, all that matters is the 'board condition'.
There are most likely branches of play that look to be promising but that a significantly skilled chess player can turn into a win.
First of all, I assume you mean to say "don't look to be promising", because the sentence doesn't make any sense otherwise. Assuming that's what you meant, we're talking about whether chess is a theoretical win or draw - all that matters is what happens with perfect play, not whether the position "looks promising".
Artificial Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with emulating HUMAN intelligence, as you seem to believe. Artifical Intelligence is about embuing a machine with the ability to go beyond it's basic programming
Well, as someone who works in AI research, I gotta say - thanks for defining our field for us, man.
Certainly a chess program can never truly go beyond it's programming; which is to win a game of chess. But what about it's basic programming; a few thousand lines of code written by a team.
So is there some well-defined distinction between 'programming' and 'basic programming' that you're trying to make here?
It can take those lines of code and make assumptions, strategies, tactics, and observations. This most certainly is beyond it's basic programming, which really just included a set of the rules for chess and a way to look ahead a few dozen moves predictively.
Err... how do you know exactly what the 'basic programming' of this hypothetical chess program exactly includes? If, as you say, the 'basic program' really just consisted of an algorithm to search game trees, then that is exactly what the program will do - it's not going to magically start 'making assumptions, strategies, and tactics' unless that is in the code.
Sorry all, for the tone. It's just that, being someone who actually knows something about chess and ai, that last post caused me physical pain, and I had to get it off my chest.
Slashdot Mirror
Does this 'school of thought' actually, you know, 'exist'? Like in the 'real world', as opposed to in your mind. If so, I'd like to know more about it - do you have any references you could point me to?
In chess, strategy is equally important to board condition
In the context of talking about whether the game of chess is a theoretical win or draw, all that matters is the 'board condition'.
There are most likely branches of play that look to be promising but that a significantly skilled chess player can turn into a win.
First of all, I assume you mean to say "don't look to be promising", because the sentence doesn't make any sense otherwise. Assuming that's what you meant, we're talking about whether chess is a theoretical win or draw - all that matters is what happens with perfect play, not whether the position "looks promising".
Artificial Intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with emulating HUMAN intelligence, as you seem to believe. Artifical Intelligence is about embuing a machine with the ability to go beyond it's basic programming
Well, as someone who works in AI research, I gotta say - thanks for defining our field for us, man.
Certainly a chess program can never truly go beyond it's programming; which is to win a game of chess. But what about it's basic programming; a few thousand lines of code written by a team.
So is there some well-defined distinction between 'programming' and 'basic programming' that you're trying to make here?
It can take those lines of code and make assumptions, strategies, tactics, and observations. This most certainly is beyond it's basic programming, which really just included a set of the rules for chess and a way to look ahead a few dozen moves predictively.
Err... how do you know exactly what the 'basic programming' of this hypothetical chess program exactly includes? If, as you say, the 'basic program' really just consisted of an algorithm to search game trees, then that is exactly what the program will do - it's not going to magically start 'making assumptions, strategies, and tactics' unless that is in the code.
Sorry all, for the tone. It's just that, being someone who actually knows something about chess and ai, that last post caused me physical pain, and I had to get it off my chest.