"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 20:36:55 -0500, BAR wrote:

Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:28:43 -0800 (PST), jamesgangnc
wrote:

All of today's computers are simply huge extensions of the first very
basic logic circuits. They are completely predictable.

There was a guy named Kasparov who thought the same thing about chess
playing computers.

Yeah but, there were people, real live humans, reprogramming those
specially designed computers after each match. Kasparov didn't get
beaten by a computer he got beaten by a league of mathematicians.

What the programmers did was use previous match data to bolster areas
where Deep Blue made "iffy" decisions - similar to the way chess
masters go over previous engagements they were involved in and their
opponents to determine tendencies on their own part and their
opponents.

What ****ed Kasparov off was that Deep Blue got creative in one match
which caused him to cry foul because he didn't think that a computer
could come up with a winning counter to one of his probes.

There is an absoutely fascinating book on the Kasparov/Deep Blue chess
matches by Monty Newborn titled "Computer chess comes of age -
Kasparov vs Deep Blue". I don't know if it's still in print, but your
library should be able to get it. If not, I have it and would be glad
to lend it to you.

It didn't get "creative". If you put all the same data back into the same
computer it would give you the same result. Everytime. And you could
follow the decision tree that lead to that result if you were so inclined.
That the program results were unanticipated doesn't make them "creative".