[ExI] spike and chess
interzone at gmail.com
Fri May 17 00:45:20 UTC 2019
The number of possible moves in chess quickly scales after a few moves to
truly ridiculous numbers so we may be waiting awhile. I've heard 10^120
bandied about which may be the high end up of estimates but even if it's
somewhat less, it remains an enormous amount. GO is even worse.
On Thu, May 16, 2019, 8:28 PM Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:
> In the other direction, how long will it be until it is convenient to
> calculate literally every position, move, et cetera - all paths a chess
> game can possibly take - so there is the option of reducing chess to a
> reference database?
> Not an option many would want involved in their own games, of course. But
> just so the option is there.
> On Thu, May 16, 2019 at 12:02 PM William Flynn Wallace <
> foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> chess programs got to where they were just as creative, imaginative,
>> artistic and all that as the best humans, in fact… better. So… apparently
>> chess doesn’t require intelligence. spike
>> This is preposterous - Why can't what the chess computer is doing be
>> intelligent? Because you define that what it is doing not intelligence.
>> It seems really out of step when you consider that chess geniuses are
>> generally pretty high IQ people to start with. I think you just don't want
>> to call it intelligent and are wiggling around out of calling it that. For
>> my money, creative, inventive, excellent recall all point to superior
>> Here's an idea: restrict the chess computer to the memory level of a
>> great chess player - even the field. Recalling millions of games is an
>> unfair advantage, it seems to me.
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the extropy-chat