On May 15, 3:14 pm, R AM <ramra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, May 15, 2012 at 7:22 PM, Craig Weinberg <whatsons...@gmail.com>wrote:
> > > Deep Blue has several possible moves
> > > and chooses one of them (just as Kasparov does). It makes a decision each
> > > move. And given that it eventually gets to check-mate, Deep Blue wins
> > chess.
> > That's only the view of a human being who is familiar with chess.
> I agree that we are not talking about frogs watching chess games. But
> a human being watching the match will see that Deep Blue makes decisions
> and wins the game.

Just as a human watching a ventriloquist hold a piece of articulated
lumber will see a dummy making conversation and getting laughs.

> Deep

Too deep apparently.

> > Blue is neither a human or familiar with chess.
> When you add 5+6 into
> > a calculator, it does not 'decide' that the answer is 11 any more than
> > a square peg decides it doesn't fit in a round hole.
> If Deep Blue had> a perspective, which it doesn't, it would have no idea who 
> Kasparov is
> > or that he was the opponent. No clue that check-mating Kasparov is
> > good or that being check-mated is bad. The game of chess is in the eye
> > of the beholder, not in the computation of statistics.
> To me, a good decision in the context of chess is that which allows to win
> a chess game. Everything else is pretty irrelevant. What is your definition
> for a good chess decision?

You are taking for granted that there is a context of chess to begin
with. That context is a human expectation, not an independent fact.
For Deep Blue there is no chess and no decision, only blind

A good chess decision is one which leads to an enjoyable experience of
playing the game of chess. It's one which adds meaning to the game for
you and your opponent, and perhaps an audience, which lingers in
people's memory for it's elegant strategy, unique style,
effectiveness, historic significance, etc. Would chess continue to
exist if it was only being played by Deep Blue against an identical
computer? What would the be the point?

> > > Deep Blue decides what piece to move and where to move it.  That counts
> > as
> > > a decision to me.
> > I understand that, I'm just trying to tell you why that doesn't work.
> > Deep Blue decides nothing.
> We use Deep Blue to inform us what the most
> > mathematically efficient chess move is and then we can choose to
> > imagine that we are playing a game against an entity that is deciding
> > to make those moves. There is no entity there though. The computer is
> > a puppet.
> There are two entities there. One is Kasparov and the other one is Deep
> Blue.

Deep Blue isn't real. It's a name that was given for specially
assembled and configured microelectronics. Kasparov knows who he is.
He is a living person. Deep Blue knows no more than a collection of
thousands of mousetraps arranged in a particular series.

> Both of them decide what pieces to move. In fact, they move them.
> Nobody is imagining anything. That is what we see.

The computer doesn't decide anything. It moves the only way that it
can move given it's programmed parameters. You can't see someone make
a decision, you can only infer that they are making one. Inferring
that a computer is making a decision is pure anthropomorphizing
projection as far I can see. It's no different from seeing THANK YOU
on a trash can lid and insisting that means that you aren't imagining
that the trash can is being polite.

> You can win chess by looking at every possible outcome of every
> > possible move and putting them in order of how few moves will likely
> > end the game in your favor. There is no decision at all, you are just
> > organizing a stack of finite patterns in order of probable efficiency.
> That's a decision to me: several alternatives and the ability to rank them.

I understand, but it's not a meaningful definition of decision to me.
Does a funnel make a decision when you pour different sized pebbles
into it?

> if you had complete information, that's how you should decide things.
> Should a human being do otherwise if he had perfect knowledge?

Yes. Knowledge is only one aspect of sense. Having perfect knowledge
is a dead end if decisions can't be informed by innovation,
creativity, humor, compassion, etc.

> > There is nothing to decide, you just solve the math problem and report
> > the result as your move.
> The problem is that in the case of chess, the math problem cannot be solved
> exactly, not even close, with the resources available currently (probably
> never). Both Kasparov and Deep Blue must resort to heuristics, previous
> knowledge, and learning. Deep Blue also loses games, it has not perfect
> knowledge.

The degree to which Deep Blue's computation is perfect or not has
nothing to do with whether it makes decisions or not. If I tell Deep
Blue "This is a really important game, so try harder to win or we are
going to scrap you", it has no way of 'trying harder'. It can only
execute the meaningless sequence of computations which we have forced
it to process.


You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
For more options, visit this group at 

Reply via email to