Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 08:46 PM
TheUnknownOne
 
Posts: n/a
Default What Deep Blue showed was that chess is not a game of true intelligence

Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but not in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.


  #2   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 08:52 PM
TheUnknownOne
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but not in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.



  #3   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 09:19 PM
Mark Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


TheUnknownOne wrote:
Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but not

in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an

indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels

at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.


Uh huh.

-Mark Martin

  #4   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 09:29 PM
TheUnknownOne
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Mark Martin" wrote in message
oups.com...

TheUnknownOne wrote:
Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but not

in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an

indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels

at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.


Uh huh.

-Mark Martin


Do you anything else to add besides an informal interjection expressing your
agreement?



  #5   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 09:52 PM
Mark Houlsby
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Do you anything else to add besides an informal interjection
expressing your
agreement?

I suspect that perhaps he was merely being polite. Someone less polite
than Mr. Martin evidently is, might have posted something like:

"No ****, Sherlock...", but it appears that Mr. Martin is much too
well-mannered to adopt such a wantonly coarse turn-of-phrase...

This is Usenet. What did you expect?

Mark Houlsby



  #6   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 10:01 PM
Anthony Buckland
 
Posts: n/a
Default

TheUnknownOne wrote:

Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but not in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.


Deep Blue showed that _mimicking_ human play of chess by
generating moves in a different way would eventually succeed
in beating humans, because the rules govern only what moves
are made, not how the moves are decided upon.

A better question than whether chess is intelligent would be,
if programs can be written to apply the _same_ thought
processes that humans do to chess, will the computers
running those programs then be judgeable to be intelligent?

  #7   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 10:37 PM
Error Flink
 
Posts: n/a
Default

No, because different types of hardware require different methods of
storing and processing information, to get the optimal "intelligent"
performance from the systems each. When machines are judged to be not
intelligent while - obviously - the results (moves in our example) they
provide are, then why are humans called intelligent...? It is stupid to
say, when two different methods lead to the (more or less) same result,
like playing chess at Grandmaster level, one is intelligent just
because it is done "biologically" (and is less researched), and the
other one is not intelligent just because the process is different.
Because that would mean, only humans can be intelligent a priori,
disregarding any other insights or arguments. When that is the
definition, it makes no sense to discuss this. It's not a big discovery
that computers are not humans :-)

It should be decided by the results a system is able to produce, not by
the design of the process. Of course we are talking of somewhat
complicated things, like high level chess is.

Kasparov said, "the performance is what counts."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/enter...blue_5-12.html

  #8   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 10:41 PM
Mark Martin
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Anthony Buckland wrote:
TheUnknownOne wrote:

Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but

not in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an

indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels

at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.


Deep Blue showed that _mimicking_ human play of chess by
generating moves in a different way would eventually succeed
in beating humans, because the rules govern only what moves
are made, not how the moves are decided upon.

A better question than whether chess is intelligent would be,
if programs can be written to apply the _same_ thought
processes that humans do to chess, will the computers
running those programs then be judgeable to be intelligent?


What I find interesting is that the strategy employed by a chess
playing computer is to just hypothetically try every move currently
possible, and follow the branches upon branches of consequences each
one implies. Deep Blue was able to contemplate some hundreds of
millions of moves/second, and just numerically integrated to converge
upon a move with the best calculable risk.

A Grand Master human player is patently incapable of such brute
force, yet Blue was beaten or tied by a human player several times over
its chess playing career. This suggests to me that humans don't play
*exactly* as do mindless computers. Humans have to be much more fluidly
ambiguous in their playing strategies in order to beat that much
arithmetic. I'd say an interesting illustration is the Viet-Nam war.
The U.S. strategy leaned heavily on overwhelming fire power, whereas
the North Vietnamese, being less well endowed, necessarily resorted to
highly practical & pragmatic practices. The U.S. was not gloriously
victorious.

This may be the major difference between Deep Blue and a human Grand
Master; The human player cannot afford to speculate on nearly every
possible future history of the game at hand. The strategy has to rely
more on abstracting away whole classes of moves which can be
disregarded wholesale, leaving only a comparatively narrow bandwidth of
possibilities to deal with. Deep Blue has deep pockets filled with
computational power, and can afford to be wasteful. The human is much
poorer, and must be efficient.

-Mark Martin

  #9   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 10:44 PM
Acme Diagnostics
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Anthony Buckland wrote:
TheUnknownOne wrote:

Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but not in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.


Deep Blue showed that _mimicking_ human play of chess by
generating moves in a different way would eventually succeed
in beating humans, because the rules govern only what moves
are made, not how the moves are decided upon.

A better question than whether chess is intelligent would be,
if programs can be written to apply the _same_ thought
processes that humans do to chess, will the computers
running those programs then be judgeable to be intelligent?


In real life there are always new rules and new pieces of
unknown scope. Humans deal with that routinely, but I don't
think AI can yet generalize the rules of games. I wonder
how Deep Blue would perform in real-time if a few of the
rules were changed.

Larry
  #10   Report Post  
Old May 10th 05, 10:50 PM
richard miller
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"TheUnknownOne" wrote in message
.. .
Otherwise a machine would not have been able to defeat a human.
Machines are superior to humans in many tasks including chess but not in
tasks where
true creative intelligence is required.
Therefore, chess is not a sign of intelligence but rather an indicator of
possessing certain abilities like memory,
logical or cause and effect thinking; both of which a machine excels at; a
human, however, is limited in both abilities.
Conclusion: machine will always beat human in chess.




Being brilliant at chess, is a sign of being brilliant at chess, just like a
high IQ is being brilliant at a high IQ. Being a brilliant musician at 3
means you will probably be brilliant at 20, but no guaranteee. Similarly,
you could have a degree in mathematics and theoretical physics at 15 but it
would not make you Albert Einstein.

Perhaps, if you were Gauss, you may be an exception. It is the media who
hype the brilliance they want to see.

The person who is brilliant is that person whose theory is verifiable,
endures, leads to new phenomena, can predict new phenomena, can overthrow
other theories which cannot make the same, observable, predictions. There
you have a genius.

Genius is ultimately based upon results. Newton has fended them off for four
hundred years. Einstein has battled much fiercer enemies for 100 years. It
is their results that stand and make their reputation what it is. Only those
in denial continually ply rubbish.

What deep blue showed is that brute force is no substitute for true genius.
And chess has nothing to with it.

If you want a winning move, choose Mathematical Physics. If you want to be a
solitary chess geek, choose Chess.

RJM




Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 July 14th 04 05:20 AM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 May 4th 04 01:59 PM
rec.games.chess.misc FAQ [2/4] [email protected] rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 0 January 16th 04 09:18 AM
Good books? 47 Ronin rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 9 July 22nd 03 08:18 PM
A FLASHBACK WITHOUT REGRETS - by Lev Khariton tomic rec.games.chess.misc (Chess General) 2 July 15th 03 11:54 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:28 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2019 ChessBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Chess"

 

Copyright © 2017