Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 14:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
On Jul 14, 9:31 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi..._at_gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
An unplugged computer would probably still give me a good game.
Received on Mon Jul 14 2008 - 23:42:18 CEST