Re: Guessing?

On Jul 14, 12:14 pm, Gene Wirchenko <ge..._at_ocis.net> wrote:
> Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >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? It appears the human and the machine are
> >roughly at parity, in terms of chess playing ability. And Kasparov
> >is a general-purpose machine, capable of doing things that
> >Deep Blue can't, like ride a bike.
>
> >One lone human has *way* more processing power than today's
> >computers. This is a sufficient explanation of their difference
> >in cognitive ability.
>
> One lone human has *way* more processing RESULTS than today's
> computers. Claiming that this is due to hardware is premature.

It may look that way if one has not examined the question. But I have. The human brain has more processing power than any computer ever built.

> How well does someone in a coma play chess? The same hardware is
> there.

The question is exactly as relevant as asking how well an unplugged computer plays chess. Or how well a dead human does.

Marshall Received on Mon Jul 14 2008 - 22:31:55 CEST