Benjamin Johnston wrote, among other things:
I like to think about Deep Blue a lot. Prior to Deep Blue, I'm sure that there were people who, like you, complained that nobody has offered a "crux" idea that could make truly intelligent computer chess system. In the end Deep Blue appeared to win largely by brute force computing power. What I find most interesting is that Kasparov didn't say he was beaten by a particularly strong computer chess system, but claimed to see deep intelligence and creativity in the machine's play. That is, he didn't think Deep Blue was merely a slightly better version than the other chess systems, but he felt it had something else. He was surprised by the way the machine was playing, and even accussed the IBM team of cheating.
You know, this gets me thinking that may the idea of intelligence is misleading. Maybe it's not really something like power or strength that is objective, but something more like deliciousness, that exists only as something we say about something else and isn't really a characteristic of the object.
andi ----- This list is sponsored by AGIRI: http://www.agiri.org/email To unsubscribe or change your options, please go to: http://v2.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=93812712-fac443
