Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:53:00 -0300
> On Jul 14, 5:45 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 13, 9:07 am, JOG <j..._at_cs.nott.ac.uk> wrote:
>>>>>The greatest weakness in the entire debate, however,
>>>>>is the capacity issue. Lack of computing capacity is
>>>>>a complete explanation for what computers can't do (yet.)
>>>Ok, this one is just ridiculous. Lets take the bastion of good old
>>>fashioned AI - chess. In the 90's the chess AI "deep blue" was
>>>processing over 200 million board positions a second. That's right.
>>>200 millions every single second. Let's compare that to a grand
>>>master, who can examine about 8. Yup, that's 199,999,992 less
>>>positions per second than the AI.
>>Hey! You've been complaining about the other side's simplistic
>>analyses, but here you're doing exactly the same thing. Deep
>>Blue included special purpose hardware for playing chess, as
>>well as dozens of general purpose CPUs. And you're claiming
>>it's looking at 25 million times as many positions per second.
>>Yet, Deep Blue lost to Kasparov, and Deeper Blue only just
>>managed to eke out a victory. So, the 25 million number is
>>crap, isn't it?
> > C'monnnn, its incredible. Examining 8 positions per second vs 200 > million.
I question your assertion. Perhaps consciously considering 8 positions per second, but obviously processing orders of magnitude more positions unconsciously. Received on Mon Jul 14 2008 - 19:53:00 CEST