Newsgroups: comp.ai,comp.ai.philosophy,comp.ai.games,comp.ai.nat-lang
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!ix.netcom.com!netcom.com!jqb
From: jqb@netcom.com (Jim Balter)
Subject: Re: Loebner Prize $2000 and a medal
Message-ID: <jqbD6tvn5.AG7@netcom.com>
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
References: <3ls4nh$qkn@hopper.acm.org> <3lvi06$icc@mycroft.rand.org> <jqbD6ss4B.Fss@netcom.com> <cmckin.331.001789D6@mbnet.mb.ca>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 1995 16:40:16 GMT
Lines: 22
Sender: jqb@netcom16.netcom.com
Xref: glinda.oz.cs.cmu.edu comp.ai:28947 comp.ai.philosophy:26744 comp.ai.games:888 comp.ai.nat-lang:3199

In article <cmckin.331.001789D6@mbnet.mb.ca>,
Christopher McKinstry <cmckin@mbnet.mb.ca> wrote:
>>>- they could beat a human.  No, I meant when
>>>- they could beat a USCF-rated human.  No, I meant when
>>>- they could beat <me>.  [Greenblatt program arrives here.]  No, I meant when
>>>- they could beat a master.  No, I meant when
>>>- they could beat a grandmaster.  No, I meant
>>>- the world champion.  In a match.  At tournament time controls.  No, I meant
>>>- chess-playing ability isn't really germane to AI at all.
>
>>But chess playing ability is just a matter of TECHnology, Jim. :-)
>>-- 
>><J Q B>
>
>and so is artificial intelligence. are you trying to imply it's something 
>other than technology?

That's a pretty dumb reading of it.  No, bub, it was simply an inside joke.
Check for references to "Gillogly" in your AI literature.
-- 
<J Q B>

