Page 20 of 20
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:09 am
by corres
[quote="shrapnel"]
Shhhh... Tsvetkov and Szabo will say its all a gigantic conspiracy between NASA and Google. :) Ahh... Google must have bribed NASA to use their Program.
[/quote]
Mr...Dharan,
I think you do not know what conspiracy means.
Conspiracy is an idea used by historians, politicians and - mainly- journalists. With this idea they point to the facts that there are things what are wanted to hide away from publicity by mastery.
Moreover there are peoples who will stigmatize other peoples who like to cogitate with the charge of making conspiracy theory.
Technicians use the idea of patent, know-how, trade secret, etc.
It is very natural thing that technicians want to guard the secret of their results.
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Posted: Tue Dec 12, 2017 10:19 am
by hgm
Milos wrote:Machine doesn't think.
That is apparently your limited and rather arbitrary interpretation of the concept. But according to a more objective definition (which is in common use; Chess engines are said to be either 'thinking', 'pondering' or 'idle' during a game), machines do think. Humans only follow the algorithms that are biochemically hard-wired in their brain...
I don't understand why you want to make a big deal out of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote. Which of us would you expect to look stupid because of that?
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:01 am
by shrapnel
Vishwanathan Anand, ex-World Champion, gives his opinion about AlphaZero
http://www.espn.in/chess/story/_/id/217 ... hess-world
Re: Much weaker than Stockfish
Posted: Fri Dec 15, 2017 8:27 am
by Uri Blass
hgm wrote:Milos wrote:Machine doesn't think.
That is apparently your limited and rather arbitrary interpretation of the concept. But according to a more objective definition (which is in common use; Chess engines are said to be either 'thinking', 'pondering' or 'idle' during a game), machines do think. Humans only follow the algorithms that are biochemically hard-wired in their brain...
I don't understand why you want to make a big deal out of deliberately misunderstanding what I wrote. Which of us would you expect to look stupid because of that?
There is no value for a claim by humans that they only follow algorithms
that are biochemically hard-wired in their brain
for the same reason that there is no value for a claim by a machine that it is a machine.
A machine can be programmed to claim it is a machine or to claim it is not a machine.
If we are really machines that follow existing algorithms then only the thing that created us to do it has a basis to say it.
I do not know if we are machines who have to follow the algorithms that are
biochemically hard-wired in our brains or it is not the case(and we have a free choice) but I prefer to assume that we have a free choice for the simple reason that I can lose nothing by this assumption(in case that we have no choice then I lose nothing by assuming that we have a choice because in that case I had no choice to do something different).