Comic Discussion > QUESTIONABLE CONTENT
WCDT: 2281-85 (24-28 September 2012) Weekly Comics Discussion Thread
PthariensFlame:
--- Quote from: Method of Madness on 01 Oct 2012, 22:18 ---Seriously though, that's an obstacle, but not an eternally insurmountable one.
--- End quote ---
No, just an observably insurmountable one.
Method of Madness:
Who knows what we'll be able to observe in the future?
Carl-E:
--- Quote from: Near Lurker on 01 Oct 2012, 22:09 ---
--- Quote from: jmucchiello on 01 Oct 2012, 10:34 ---The point is, we do not teach Chess programs HOW to play Chess. We teach them to solve solutions to the current board state that result in victory for a given side based on a breadth first search of what might happen next and how much that something benefits or harms both sides.
--- End quote ---
"You don't drive a car, you accelerate, brake, signal, and steer."
--- End quote ---
I think that's the point. Certainly, people have a "style" of driving, and similarly, chess players have a style of play (or develop one, or are taught "a few tricks") that can help lead to a stronger position. A human has not the resources to analyse the game the way a computer can, even if that analysis is limited. Otherwise, it becomes like tic-tac-toe...
The main difference of course between driving and chess is that driving is even more variable with its constantly shifting end-game of "arriving alive". :-D
Mr_Rose:
Robots are getting sufficiently good at it that some states are legalising driverless and autonomous vehicles on unmodified roads though…
Carl-E:
Computers are very good at taking many variables into consideration and applying rules. So driving, applying the rules of the road, will likely result in wining the game (arriving at the destination safely).
In chess, just following the rules isn't nearly enough to win!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version