Date: Tue, 5 Aug 1997 15:26:18 +1000
From: mjb-AT-comserver.canberra.edu.au (Michael Booth)
Subject: Re: inductive logic


Greetings to the Technology group

 JF Koh <koh-AT-cleo.murdoch.edu.au> wote:
>Thanks for the leads, folks.
>
>I did a double-take when someone told me that it has been done.  Just had
>to double-check and be sure.
>
>Would anyone be interested in a discussion about IBM's chess-playing
>computer, Deep Blue?
>
>
>
>     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

There isn't a whole lot to discuss. Chess, being a game that is finite -
there are a very large, but calculable set of possible moves, there is no
great challenge to geting a computer to play, and presumably ensureeither a
checkmate or a draw. The algorithm goes something like this, according to
Daniel C. Dennett. 
Draw the decision tree of all possible chess games ( a vast but finite
number). Go to the end node of each game, it will either a win for white, a
win for black, or a draw. Color the node white, black or gray depending on
the outcome. Work backwards one whole step (one white plus one black move)
at a time; if on the previous move all the paths from any one of white's
moves lead through all black's responses to a white colored node, color
that node white, and then move back again. Do the same for any paths that
guarantee a win for black. Color any other nodes gray. At the end of this
procedure (way past the end of time), you will have identified all the
games and all the moves that must result in a white win, leasding from the
end game all the way back to any of the twenty legal opening moves. Now
ply, sticking only to those moves that lead to a white win, and avoid any
move that might open up the possibility of a black win. The worst you can
do is draw. This is the theory, not remotely possible or feasible in
practice, because the set of possibilities is enormous. 

Clearly those who programmed Deep Blue, Deeper Blue, whatever the  machine
is called have come up with algorithms that do not follow the above
procedure, but algorithms that are a great deal more heuristic and less
mechanical, at least to the point where they can beat the best that human
beings can put up. Most things are, according to Dennett, capable of being
the intentional or unitentional product of single or combinations of
algorithms, whatever that tells about the respective capacities of human
beings and machines constructed by human beings. 

Nice to get on-line, I hope this fits in with the tenor and tone of the
spoon collective and technology. See ya round. 

-
Take Care
Michael Booth
Associate Lecturer
Faculty of Communication
University of Canberra                          Ph:  61 6 201 2161 (w)     
     61 6 241 2591 (h)
PO Box 1                                                    Fax:  61 6 201 5119
Belconnen, ACT, 2616                            Email: 
mjb-AT-comserver.canberra.edu.au
AUSTRALIA
                       =============================================                                                        I Know
                                                It's Only Rock'n'Roll. 
                                                        But I like it, 
                                                like it, like it, yes I do. 
                        =============================================
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6.3i
mQBPAjH0m1kAAAECAMNq6swTGMMKWIJwyalIhAKzYQzTq4hf/mUwsOczRySRlnDV
d6/e4bUVD9+zKnomL50MhhQlDhxXLS8jd8XNyNEAEQEAAbQvIk1pY2hhZWwgQm9v
dGggPG1qYkBjb21zZXJ2ZXIuY2FuYmVycmEuZWR1LmF1PiKJAFUCBRAx9JusLS8j
d8XNyNEBAbwqAf9jM4qjpfgwhfUdUYmamVycStSAioKvp4hY88bMIVycWA9LaDQc
Zh5HGY6adNRTmCpsMPuGnTVIBWN00mc0a38B
=2eB+
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----

                    




     --- from list technology-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---