Playing a machine

By -
When I play my computer chess program, at a certain point in the game, it will begin to simply throw pieces at me: "Here, have my queen! Here, have my rook!"

It does this when I have a forced checkmate, in order to delay the checkmate by a couple of moves. This is silly, because:

1) If I have seen the check mate, it should not matter to my opponent whether it happens in five moves or in seven.
2) If I haven't seen the checkmate, the computer has just alerted me to the fact that there is one.
3) If I still can't find the checkmate, the computer has handed me the game anyway, since it's given up all its pieces except the king.

Of course, I excuse it: it is just a machine. It doesn't even know that it is playing chess. It doesn't know what an opponent is. It doesn't understand the idea of winning. Like a marble rolling down an inclined plane, it is just mechanically doing exactly what it was built to do.

And Silas, just relax and watch a football game or something: it will be a better use of your time.


Comments

  1. rob5:20 PM

    But how do you know that it doesn't even know that it is playing chess?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. gcallah11:08 AM

      Hmmm, how do I know that the maple tree in the yard is not plotting against me? How do I know that my pet turtle is not actually a super intelligent alien monitoring me? How do I know that my pillow isn't really considering smothering me at this very moment?

      You got me: I don't know any of these things for sure!

      Delete
    2. Samson Corwell1:51 PM

      You have a pet turtle?

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Libertarians, My Libertarians!

By -
Cruel to be kind means that I love you . Because, while I think you are mistaken, your hearts are in the right place -- yes, even you, Silas --  unlike some people . This Breitbart fellow (discussed in the link above), by all appearances, deliberately doctored a video of Shirley Sherrod to make her remarks appear virulently racist, when they had, in fact, the opposite import. I heard that at a recent Austrian conference, some folks were talking about "Callahan's conservative turn." While that description is not entirely inaccurate, I must say that a lot of these people who today call themselves conservative give me the heebie-jeebies.
Read more

"Pre-Galilean" Foolishness

By -
 I am currently reading The Master and His Emissary , which appears to be an excellent book. ("Appears" because I don't know the neuroscience literature well enough to say for sure, yet.) But then on page 186 I find: "Asking cognition, however, to give a perspective on the relationship between cognition and affect is like asking astronomer in the pre-Galilean geocentric world, whether, in his opinion, the sun moves round the earth of the earth around the sun. To ask a question alone would be enough to label one as mad." OK, this is garbage. First of all, it should be pre-Copernican, not pre-Galilean. But much worse is that people have seriously been considering heliocentrism for many centuries before Copernicus. Aristarchus had proposed a heliocentric model in the 4th-century BC. It had generally been considered wrong, but not "mad." (And wrong for scientific reasons: Why, for instance, did we not observe stellar parallax?) And when Copernicus propose
Read more