| View previous topic :: View next topic |
Brian Ambrose
|
|
 |
|
|
This is all very well, but why did the vicar drown?
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Brian Ambrose wrote: | | This is all very well, but why did the vicar drown? |
He did not know where the stones were.......
Later on we will deal with "stepping stone" approaches and comparing them with "analytic trees".
When humans are faced with a range of reasonable candidate options they need to decide on an approach which avoids "drowning"........
Thanks for the feedback.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ok any ideas on the other question.....
Why does the early translated "shantranji" read:
Rook Pawn = 1
Knight pawn=1.5
Centre pawn=2
Bishop =2
Queen=3
Knight=5.33
Rook =8
Whilst our modern chart reads...
Pawn=1
Knight=3
Bishop=3
Rook=5
Queen=9
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grant
|
|
|
|
|
Were the rules different? The queen could move only three squares?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You are right...
The rules were different.....
In its infancy, the Queen could only move 1 square any direction.
The bishop merely 2 squares diagonally.
It then "speeded up" by giving increased poweres to Queen, and Bishop and introducing the ability of the pawn to move two squares on the first move.......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK, we are considering a basic method of evaluating the strength of chess pieces.
We have shown that the approximate values on a sheet of modern instructions roughly reflect the mobility of the pieces.
The more mobile the piece the higher the value.
On modern instructions there is normally no value given to the king. Lose the king, lose the game.
Computers tend to give any high value to the king, eg 325. Shannon proposed a value of 200 in his 1949 paper.
The approximate offensive value of a king is 3. Given that you cannot lose your king, the offensive capabilities are only realised at the end of the game...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the next few posts we are going to look at why our chart of chess piece values is so useful both to a chess player and a programmer.
But before we do... you might want to think about why any such list is really based on half truths and lies.....
Just read that they are going to dig poor Bobby up....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For those of you are wondering about the difference between ancient modern warfare on the THOBR thread.
You might want to consider what we have already learned about the importance of mobility in chess.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OK so we note that the difference between ancient and modern warfare might be "mobilisation" and "mobility" and ...... we also try to figure out why some threads like THOBR generate lots of "ideas" and "analysis"......
We will have to come back to "ideas" and "analysis" later......
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What the f**** has all this boring twaddle about chess which is a highly tedious board game of interest only to its devotees to do with possible computer consciousness - a riveting subject of interest to most of the world?
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Leon wrote: | Superstition persists even in the hallowed halls of Science. Question is, what might make anyone imagine that a machine will acquire consciousness? What precedent in nature can be cited?
When I observed that no degree of consciousness has ever been recorded outside the biological realm, my interlocutor replied that the concept of what is life has to be redefined. Of course: ' "The question," said Humpty Dumpty, "is, who is to be master." ' |
Well, firstly, it seems to me very interesting that it is felt that there is a need to show a precedent for this. Why cannot this happen for "the first time"? There are plenty of precedents of other things happening "for the first time".
As I see it, the problem is trying to imagine what factor might trigger the step into "unprogrammed consciousness" from "programmed pseudo-consciousness".
A useful initial step in this discussion might be a straw poll of AEL contributors as to who believes that machines may obtain consciousness at some time in the future and those who resolutely think it is all a load of silly day-dreaming.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brian Ambrose
|
|
|
|
| As I see it, the problem is trying to imagine what factor might trigger the step into "unprogrammed consciousness" from "programmed pseudo-consciousness". |
I'd suggest it's a much, much bigger problem for the imagination than that. Back up, forget consciousness, forget pseudo-consciousness, forget even pseudo-intelligence. The problem right now is to imagine what factor might possibly get us across the vast gulf which separates intelligence of any kind from mere algorithmic processing. That would be leap enough. Of course you can say that we already have pseudo intelligence, that is, computer activity which appears to be intelligent. Yes, a chess program certainly does seem to make intelligent moves. But it does not actually make those decisions intelligently, so is it any more pseudo-intelligent than any physical object which we might observe obeying physical laws? Computers do not emulate real intelligence in a non biological environment, they cannot because we would need to program them to do so, and whilst we can define it (with difficulty), we don't actually know what intelligence is. I think the closest we can get with current technology is pseudo-instinct.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In response to Brian's last
These are very interesting points which call for some cogitation.
But as an initial observation: if we don't know what intelligence really is, how do we know that our "programmed algorithms" are not in reality a form of primitive intelligence. After all robotics has moved to achieving a limited state of self-awareness, has it not?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ishmael
In: Toronto
|
|
|
|
|
This is all dangerously close to metaphysics. We don't allow that sort of language 'round here.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
The Library Index 
FAQ 
Search
Register
Profile 
Log in to check your private messages 
Log in 
