From: Russell Wallace (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 10:31:44 MST
On Fri, 28 Jan 2005 10:46:09 -0500, Eliezer S. Yudkowsky
> Russell Wallace wrote:
> > We know what I(chess) is: the minimax function.
> Not so. Minimax is I(chess) only against another minimax I(chess)
> opponent. Suppose chess is a win for black under minimax I(chess). A
> *smart* and infinitely powerful player playing white might still win,
> against a non-I-chess but superintelligent opponent, by predicting which
> moves for white were likely to lead to mistakes for black (moves off the
> sure-win game tree) given knowledge of black's algorithm, even if minimax
> I(chess) would lose against that superintelligent opponent.
True. Okay, add "...as long as you don't have any exploitable
information about your opponent's algorithm" to my statement.
> Eh? Kasparov did beat Deep Blue in at least some games, if I recall
> correctly. Kasparov's algorithm is not a mere tweak of minimax, even if it
> distantly shares some structural features.
Well yes, but Kasparov's algorithm was millions of times less
efficient - they were evenly matched when Kasparov was using a
nanocomputer and Deep Blue was using mere silicon. Run Deep Blue on a
nanocomputer and I suspect it'll be unbeatable by _any_ opponent, even
one that has both infinite computing power and perfect knowledge of
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 23 2013 - 04:01:13 MDT