The goal of chess is well defined: Avoid being checkmate and try to
checkmate your opponent.
What checkmate means can be specified formally.
Humans mainly learn chess from playing chess. Obviously their knowledge
about other domains are not sufficient for most beginners to be a good chess
player
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 4:13 AM, Trent Waddington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 8:39 AM, Vladimir Nesov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you consider programming an AI social activity, you very
unnaturally generalized this term, confusing other people. Chess
programs do learn
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 12:55 AM, Matt Mahoney wrote:
I suppose you are right. Instead of encoding mathematical rules as a grammar,
with enough training
data you can just code all possible instances that are likely to be
encountered. For example, instead
of a grammar rule to encode the
Once again, there is a depth to understanding - it's not simply a binary
proposition.
Don't you agree that a grandmaster understands chess better than you do, even
if his moves are understandable to you in hindsight?
If I'm not good at math, I might not be able to solve y=3x+4 for x, but I
I have already proved something stronger
What would you consider your best reference/paper outlining your arguments?
Thanks in advance.
- Original Message -
From: Matt Mahoney [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: agi@v2.listbox.com
Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2008 8:55 PM
Subject: Re: AW: AW:
But, I still do not agree with the way you are using the incompleteness
theorem.
Um. OK. Could you point to a specific example where you disagree? I'm a
little at a loss here . . . .
It is important to distinguish between two different types of
incompleteness.
1. Normal Incompleteness--
Hi. I don't understand the following statements. Could you explain it some
more?
- Natural language can be learned from examples. Formal language can not.
I think that you're basing this upon the methods that *you* would apply to each
of the types of language. It makes sense to me that
--- On Thu, 10/23/08, Mark Waser [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hi. I don't understand the following
statements. Could you explain it some more?
- Natural language can be learned from examples. Formal language
can not.
I really mean that formal languages like C++ and HTML are not designed to
Guys,
A slightly weird conversation. *Everything* cognitive involves problem-solving.
Perception (is it a bird or a plane?) involves problem-solving.
Perhaps what you really mean is ...involves *deliberate/conscious*
problem-solving as opposed to *automatic/unconscious* problem-solving ?
Natural language understanding is a problem. And a system with the ability
to understand natural language is obviously able to solve *this* problem.
But the ability to talk about certain domains does not imply the ability to
solve the problems in this domain.
I have argued this point with my
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes ... at the moment the styles of human and computer chess players are
different enough that doing well against computer players does not imply
doing nearly equally well against human players ... though it certainly
helps
On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 6:46 PM, Trent Waddington
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:41 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Yes ... at the moment the styles of human and computer chess players are
different enough that doing well against computer players does not imply
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 8:48 AM, Ben Goertzel [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suspect that's a half-truth...
Well as a somewhat good chess instructor myself, I have to say I
completely agree with it. People who play well against computers
rarely rank above first time players.. in fact, most of them
Just now there is a world championship in chess. My chess programs (e.g.
Fritz 11) can give a ranking for all moves given an arbitrary chess
position.
The program agrees with the grandmasters which moves are in the top 5. In
most situations it even agrees which move is the best one.
Thus, human
Yeah, but these programs did not learn to play via playing other computer
players or studying the rules of the game ... they use alpha-beta pruning
combined with heuristic evaluation functions carefully crafted by human
chess experts ... i.e. they are created based on human knowledge about
playing
I am very impressed about the performance of humans in chess compared to
computer chess.
The computer steps through millions(!) of positions per second. And even if
the best chess players say they only evaluate max 3 positions per second I
am sure that this cannot be true because there are so
Within the domain of chess there is everything to know about chess.
So if it comes up to be a good chess player learning chess from playing
chess must be sufficient. Thus, an AGI which is not able to enhance its
abilities in chess from playing chess alone is no AGI.
I'm jumping into this
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I think humans represent chess by a huge number of *visual* patterns.
http://www.eyeway.org/inform/sp-chess.htm
Trent
---
agi
Archives:
Trent:
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Dr. Matthias Heger [EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
I think humans represent chess by a huge number of *visual* patterns.
http://www.eyeway.org/inform/sp-chess.htm
We've been over this one several times in the past (perhaps you haven't been
here). Blind
On Fri, Oct 24, 2008 at 1:04 PM, Mike Tintner [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We've been over this one several times in the past (perhaps you haven't been
here). Blind people can see - they can draw the shapes of objects. . They
create their visual shapes out of touch.Touch comes prior to vision in
Mark,
I'm saying Godelian completeness/incompleteness can't be easily
defined in the context of natural language, so it shouldn't be applied
there without providing justification for that application
(specifically, unambiguous definitions of provably true and
semantically true for natural
21 matches
Mail list logo
