If you agree with the statement, "a chess engine doesn't actually understand chess" which statement is closest to your meaning:
-
F myrmepropagandist shared this topic
-
If you agree with the statement, "a chess engine doesn't actually understand chess" which statement is closest to your meaning:
I'm curious what other people say. Personally I think an engine programmed with chess rules "understands" chess, but some kind of statistical algorithm that spits out moves based on probability does not. "understand" chess.
-
I'm curious what other people say. Personally I think an engine programmed with chess rules "understands" chess, but some kind of statistical algorithm that spits out moves based on probability does not. "understand" chess.
@futurebird @zachweinersmith.bsky.social I really don't know what I'm talking about, but I understand that one of the techniques for computer Go programs is to evaluate positions by randomly placing stones on the board and seeing which positions end up stronger after giving each position a huge number of random trials.
That doesn't sound like "Understanding Go," but it could sound like "Having a feel for relative strength of positions."
-
@futurebird @zachweinersmith.bsky.social I really don't know what I'm talking about, but I understand that one of the techniques for computer Go programs is to evaluate positions by randomly placing stones on the board and seeing which positions end up stronger after giving each position a huge number of random trials.
That doesn't sound like "Understanding Go," but it could sound like "Having a feel for relative strength of positions."
@raganwald @zachweinersmith.bsky.social
Do people who know the rules of go and play it and try to win understand it?
If the answer is "not always" that's a higher use of "understand" I think?
