Re: Guessing?
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2008 18:47:32 -0300
Message-ID: <487bc974$0$4046$9a566e8b_at_news.aliant.net>
JOG wrote:
> On Jul 14, 9:30 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>>On Jul 14, 6:53 pm, Bob Badour <bbad..._at_pei.sympatico.ca> wrote:
>>
>>>>JOG wrote:
>>
>>>>>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.)
>>
>>>>>>><splutter/>
>>
>>>>>>>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.
>>
>>>There is nothing obvious about it, and as far as I know you are wrong
>>>to question it. Both amateurs and grandmasters are thought to consider
>>>(relatively) few moves, the advantage of the expert lying in memory,
>>>pattern recognition and generalization (specifically visual-spatial),
>>>not positions considered per second.
>>
>>But those are just ways to consider many positions per second.
> > Bollocks. In what bizarro world does not considering something = > considering it. You are confusing coming up with a good solution with > the strategy used to get there.
How do you establish they were not considered?
>>>The question that should be asked therefore is how the grandmaster
>>>manages to ignore the millions of possibilities that the chess
>>>computer is too stupid to. Grandmasters don't have to process the
>>>other millions of board positions because they don't even consider
>>>them, period.
>>
>>Again, I question your assertion.
>>
>> I am happy to expand if you are interested even though
>>
>>
>>>its OT. Regards, J.
>>
>>Sure. But how do you establish that the brain isn't doing processing
>>unconsciously?
Where is your expansion? Received on Mon Jul 14 2008 - 23:47:32 CEST