Newsgroups: rec.games.chess.analysis,rec.games.chess.computer,comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!bb3.andrew.cmu.edu!newsfeed.pitt.edu!gatech!news.mathworks.com!uhog.mit.edu!news!ml.media.mit.edu!minsky
From: minsky@ml.media.mit.edu (Marvin Minsky)
Subject: Re: Article on Kasparov vs Deep Blue
Message-ID: <1996Apr13.210236.26434@media.mit.edu>
Sender: news@media.mit.edu (USENET News System)
Organization: MIT Media Lab
References: <4j6n67$nhq@news.lth.se> <4k983n$9k5@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <everestDpqCqr.IBo@netcom.com>
Date: Sat, 13 Apr 1996 21:02:36 GMT
Lines: 18
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:38211 comp.ai.philosophy:40038

In article <everestDpqCqr.IBo@netcom.com> everest@netcom.com (Wlodzimierz Holsztynski) writes:
>In article <4k983n$9k5@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, TTurgut <tturgut@aol.com> wrote:

>	Chess indeed is within the physical range of computers
>	it seems today, who knows. But larger FINITE games
>	may be easily beyond the range of any future computer.

Indeed, it seems likely that computers may soon surpass human levels
of play.  However, that doesn't mean that they'll have mastered chess,
because we don't have much reason to suppose that humans have come
anywhere near "understanding" the full game.  In other words, there
might be a seemingly endless succession of tournaments in which humans
play no important role.

(Checkers, on the other hand, seems closer to being terminal, because
there are knwon to be many initial positions from which we know how to
force a draw--or so I've been told.)

