From: Lee Corbin (email@example.com)
Date: Fri Jan 28 2005 - 21:47:48 MST
Eliezer had written
> > There's a tremendous amount of exploitable structure
> > in the game of chess that is not exploited by modern
> > algorithms. Kasparov nearly fought Deep Blue to a
> > standstill, exploring fewer than 2 moves per second
> > to Deep Blue's 2 billion!
and in another place
> > 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.
I've been away. Perhaps you mean by "nanocomputer" something more
than a massively parallel machine.
But something tells me that in 100 generations, using 19th century
knowledge, we could breed humans any five-year-old of whom could
dispatch Kasparov. Chess is trivially easy when compared to the
skill it takes to, say, master a language the way a child does.
> 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 Deep Blue.
Maybe so, but that's because you're using chess rather than something
less limited, say NxN go, or something even that does not have simple
The power of algorithmic superiority---just look at what the general
purpose and very slow human brain can do (Hawkins' book)---surely is
exponentially superior to the mindless crunching of Big Blue.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed Jul 17 2013 - 04:00:50 MDT