gpmenos@phoenix.Princeton.EDU (G. Philippe Menos) (04/17/89)
To: throopw@agarn.dg.com In article <5036@xyzzy.UUCP> Wayne Throop (throopw@agarn.dg.com) writes: >> ellis@unix.SRI.COM (Michael Ellis) >> In spite of the stunning success in computer chess technology, >> it has taught us practically nothing about how human chess players >> do it, and I fear that symbol crunching gadgets from the folks >> who make "Machines Who Think" will have a little else to add, >> no matter how operationally they might resemble you. > >But is it worthless to have found out that human players don't seem to >have some ultra-fast evaluator of positions working below the level of >the conscious mind, and that instead they have a much more subtle >method? I would not count results from even lowly chess research as >useless, and even the negative result pointed out above hardly means >that computers cannot ever evaluate chess positions as humans do. >Wayne Throop <the-known-world>!mcnc!rti!xyzzy!throopw Dear Friend, I have no involvement in AI, other than a passing interest, based on reading stuff in the media or popular authors like Hofstadter; but your statement intrigued me... What is this "subtle method", in your opinion. Are you referring to "intuition", or some supra-rational/supra-sensory means of knowledge? Secondly, can anyone give me any references for the info on chess research... specifically the "finding" or "conclusion" that human players don't seem to have some "ultra-fast evaluator"... With appreciation, -Phil