Quote:
Originally Posted by Eric Roosevelt  There seems to be little evidence for that.
But even if IBM cheated, programs are now beating humans on a regular basis. I can give you a list if you want. The defeat of Vladimir Kramnik by the chess software Deep Fritz in 2006 is a good example. |
You mean where he lost a drawn game due to overlooking mate in one? In any case, you have to remember that computers also have the advantage of being completely unaffected by emotions and fatigue, although this has nothing to do with how solvable chess is.
Quote:
My claim was that life itself has a more complex "game-tree" than a game of chess (i.e. more available choices). We know this because the game of chess is actually contained within the game of life. It's basically a mathematical subset. On the other hand, I agree with you that chess is a very complex game. No disagreements there.
All complexities are similar in the sense that they all have a huge amount of available choices, but that doesn't necessarily make them similar in nature. There are different rules for different games, and different types of information.
|
And the point is that these differences are a non-issue. You can solve many maths problems through the same methods, even if the numbers are different. Since as you put it chess is a subset, it's evident that they are of the same essence, as are all the other activities that make up our life.
You can apply Kasparov's model of time, material and quality into business or politics and it 'd make perfect sense.
A great athlete manages to stay poised under fire. An elegant lady keeps her grace under pressure. How different are those situations really?