Total Posts:42|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page

# Deep Blue and "intelligence"

 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:18:03 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Deep Blue simply generated millions upon millions of possible moves, assigned a rating to each move using an algorithm, and chose the move with the highest rating.And how exactly does Kasparov pick his moves, in your opinion? Do you have proof that your opinion as to how he selected his moves is correct?Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:25:14 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:18:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Deep Blue simply generated millions upon millions of possible moves, assigned a rating to each move using an algorithm, and chose the move with the highest rating.And how exactly does Kasparov pick his moves, in your opinion? Do you have proof that your opinion as to how he selected his moves is correct?I don't claim to know exactly how Kasparov picks his moves. However, the human brain is simply not capable of generating millions of moves per second and tracking each move along all possible paths, so I can be sure that Kasparov was not making his moves like Deep Blue was, for there's simply no way he could compete against Deep Blue if that were the case.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:28:54 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:25:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:18:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Deep Blue simply generated millions upon millions of possible moves, assigned a rating to each move using an algorithm, and chose the move with the highest rating.And how exactly does Kasparov pick his moves, in your opinion? Do you have proof that your opinion as to how he selected his moves is correct?I don't claim to know exactly how Kasparov picks his moves. However, the human brain is simply not capable of generating millions of moves per second and tracking each move along all possible paths, so I can be sure that Kasparov was not making his moves like Deep Blue was, for there's simply no way he could compete against Deep Blue if that were the case.So, to be clear, you don't know how he does it, but you know he does it "more intelligently" than Deep Blue?Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:36:42 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:28:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:25:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:18:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Deep Blue simply generated millions upon millions of possible moves, assigned a rating to each move using an algorithm, and chose the move with the highest rating.And how exactly does Kasparov pick his moves, in your opinion? Do you have proof that your opinion as to how he selected his moves is correct?I don't claim to know exactly how Kasparov picks his moves. However, the human brain is simply not capable of generating millions of moves per second and tracking each move along all possible paths, so I can be sure that Kasparov was not making his moves like Deep Blue was, for there's simply no way he could compete against Deep Blue if that were the case.So, to be clear, you don't know how he does it, but you know he does it "more intelligently" than Deep Blue?I don't know how he does it, but I know how he doesn't do it (brute force). Given the sheer computational advantage of Deep Blue - the fact that it could simulate trillions of moves within the given timeframe, while Kasparov could simulate only a fraction of that - implies that Kasparov was a smarter player, given that he won 2.5 games out of six. What other explanation is there?
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:38:49 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:36:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:28:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:25:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:18:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Deep Blue simply generated millions upon millions of possible moves, assigned a rating to each move using an algorithm, and chose the move with the highest rating.And how exactly does Kasparov pick his moves, in your opinion? Do you have proof that your opinion as to how he selected his moves is correct?I don't claim to know exactly how Kasparov picks his moves. However, the human brain is simply not capable of generating millions of moves per second and tracking each move along all possible paths, so I can be sure that Kasparov was not making his moves like Deep Blue was, for there's simply no way he could compete against Deep Blue if that were the case.So, to be clear, you don't know how he does it, but you know he does it "more intelligently" than Deep Blue?I don't know how he does it, but I know how he doesn't do it (brute force). Given the sheer computational advantage of Deep Blue - the fact that it could simulate trillions of moves within the given timeframe, while Kasparov could simulate only a fraction of that - implies that Kasparov was a smarter player, given that he won 2.5 games out of six. What other explanation is there?That the algorithm that DB used was better than the algorithm that GK used.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:43:10 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:38:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:36:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:28:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:25:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:18:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Deep Blue simply generated millions upon millions of possible moves, assigned a rating to each move using an algorithm, and chose the move with the highest rating.And how exactly does Kasparov pick his moves, in your opinion? Do you have proof that your opinion as to how he selected his moves is correct?I don't claim to know exactly how Kasparov picks his moves. However, the human brain is simply not capable of generating millions of moves per second and tracking each move along all possible paths, so I can be sure that Kasparov was not making his moves like Deep Blue was, for there's simply no way he could compete against Deep Blue if that were the case.So, to be clear, you don't know how he does it, but you know he does it "more intelligently" than Deep Blue?I don't know how he does it, but I know how he doesn't do it (brute force). Given the sheer computational advantage of Deep Blue - the fact that it could simulate trillions of moves within the given timeframe, while Kasparov could simulate only a fraction of that - implies that Kasparov was a smarter player, given that he won 2.5 games out of six. What other explanation is there?That the algorithm that DB used was better than the algorithm that GK used.Except GK wasn't using an "algorithm", because he's not a computer. If Deep Blue's strategy were truly more intelligent than Kasparov's, then it should have utterly dominated him, given that it was applied to trillions of times more data.
 Posts: 1,617 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:46:39 PMPosted: 3 years agoWell no. Deep Blue (computer program) essentially did not agree to the rules that were set before the match. They kept changing the program while the game was on-going which sort of makes it cheating. Earlier, Kasparov had beaten the computer. But when asked about "why he had lost" he said, the computer was "doing thing it could not have been computationally capable of doing" like artificial intelligence! After the game, the developers admitted they had changed the programs mid-game which is cheating.
 Posts: 13,777 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:51:12 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:46:39 PM, fazz wrote:Well no. Deep Blue (computer program) essentially did not agree to the rules that were set before the match. They kept changing the program while the game was on-going which sort of makes it cheating. Earlier, Kasparov had beaten the computer. But when asked about "why he had lost" he said, the computer was "doing thing it could not have been computationally capable of doing" like artificial intelligence! After the game, the developers admitted they had changed the programs mid-game which is cheating.That's just a conspiracy theory peddled by Kasparov lol. To my knowledge, there is no proof of this.
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:51:23 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:43:10 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:38:49 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:36:42 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:28:54 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:25:14 PM, dylancatlow wrote:At 11/25/2014 2:18:03 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:At 11/25/2014 1:55:50 PM, dylancatlow wrote:Deep Blue simply generated millions upon millions of possible moves, assigned a rating to each move using an algorithm, and chose the move with the highest rating.And how exactly does Kasparov pick his moves, in your opinion? Do you have proof that your opinion as to how he selected his moves is correct?I don't claim to know exactly how Kasparov picks his moves. However, the human brain is simply not capable of generating millions of moves per second and tracking each move along all possible paths, so I can be sure that Kasparov was not making his moves like Deep Blue was, for there's simply no way he could compete against Deep Blue if that were the case.So, to be clear, you don't know how he does it, but you know he does it "more intelligently" than Deep Blue?I don't know how he does it, but I know how he doesn't do it (brute force). Given the sheer computational advantage of Deep Blue - the fact that it could simulate trillions of moves within the given timeframe, while Kasparov could simulate only a fraction of that - implies that Kasparov was a smarter player, given that he won 2.5 games out of six. What other explanation is there?That the algorithm that DB used was better than the algorithm that GK used.Except GK wasn't using an "algorithm", because he's not a computer.It's not impossible for a non-computer to use an algorithm. An algorithm is a step-by-step process of solving a calculation. Moves are calculated. He most definitely DID have an algorithm--unless you're claiming that he "felt" his way to the correct answer, in which case I find it very hard to attribute that to "intelligence". His strategies had been named before he came along.If Deep Blue's strategy were truly more intelligent than Kasparov's, then it should have utterly dominated him, given that it was applied to trillions of times more data.It was better sufficient to win. It's worth noting that Kasparov's own frustration led him to resign a game that could have been a draw, too.The notion that Deep Blue could only have had a better strategy if its algorithm was perfect is absurd.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 7,126 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 2:52:27 PMPosted: 3 years agoAt 11/25/2014 2:46:39 PM, fazz wrote:Well no. Deep Blue (computer program) essentially did not agree to the rules that were set before the match. They kept changing the program while the game was on-going which sort of makes it cheating. Earlier, Kasparov had beaten the computer. But when asked about "why he had lost" he said, the computer was "doing thing it could not have been computationally capable of doing" like artificial intelligence! After the game, the developers admitted they had changed the programs mid-game which is cheating.No. The rules allowed for changes to the program between games--it's no different than Kasparov learning from his mistakes. What Kasparov accused them of was human intervention DURING the game. A claim for which he has no evidence at all.Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
 Posts: 1,617 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 3:40:19 PMPosted: 3 years agoI would like to see the evidence. I still fail to find any place or website on the internet where IBM has published the logs. Since, publishing the 'real' logs could make their stocks plummet 20% (as mentioned) it would be safe to assume publishing at a later date means they doctored the evidence. No offense to medical practicers.
 Posts: 1,617 Add as FriendChallenge to a DebateSend a Message 11/25/2014 4:02:40 PMPosted: 3 years agoIBM said it published the logs on this website. The link however is blank. No logs. No mention of claims. Nothing: http://www-03.ibm.com...