Do computers play games like humans?
August 25th, 2007 by tim finin
Ten years ago IBM’s Deep Blue beat then reigning world chess champion Gary Kasparov in an exhibition match under regular time control. So what does this mean — about the minds computers and people?
Noted Tufts philosopher Daniel Dennett has an article, Higher Games, in this month’s Technology Review in which he discuses the meaning of event.
“Chess requires brilliant thinking, supposedly the one feat that would be–forever–beyond the reach of any computer. But for a decade, human beings have had to live with the fact that one of our species’ most celebrated intellectual summits–the title of world chess champion–has to be shared with a machine, Deep Blue, which beat Garry Kasparov in a highly publicized match in 1997. How could this be? What lessons could be gleaned from this shocking upset? Did we learn that machines could actually think as well as the smartest of us, or had chess been exposed as not such a deep game after all?”
(spotted on AAAI’s AI in the News)
One Response to “Do computers play games like humans?”
Leave a Reply
UMBC
Other blogs
- Categories
- AI
- Art
- audio
- books
- Careers
- Contests
- CS
- Events
- Flash
- Game consols
- Game design
- Game engines
- GDC
- General
- graphics
- Hardware
- History
- IGDA
- immersive gaming
- industry news
- jobs
- MMOGs
- News
- Parallel programming
- Programming
- research
- Second life
- social media
- sofware
- Students & Graduates
- technology
- UMBC classes
- UMBC Research
- virtual worlds
- Visual Arts
- weird
- Wii
- xbox
- Archives
- Meta
Recent posts
Graphics pioneer Randy Pausch has died
UMBC-spawned game company in the news
Surprises from the ESA survey of gamers
ShaderX2 books online
Robert Holder wrote on 08/25/07 at 1:37 pm :
Maybe it’s an oversimplification, but, just like we use electronic address books because we can’t remember all of our associates’ phone numbers, we now have a machine that remembers all our associates’ best chess insights. The fact that our collection of knowledge exceeds the capacity of a human brain is a testament to the field, not an indication of the shortcoming of humans.
If we’ve lost anything, it is the emphasis of understanding the theory behind certain moves and positions. Now, like going to the back of the algebra book, we can just do a brute-force roll out to find the correct “answer” instead of understanding how to arrive at that answer.