<blockquote id="quote"><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Larry Burford</i>
<br />Don't hear too much about chess AI now days. But this particular example is different (it's still considered AI). I think it isn't discussed much in public because it worries us.<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">I remember the first electronic chess boards. I still have an old one. This was back before the first PC even existed, so it couldn't have had much brute force calculating powers. I remember how I used to lose on Level 1 (there were 9 Levels) in the beginning. Then after a few weeks, I won on level 1, and from that point forward I realized how silly it was on level 1. You could trick it, just by doing something unexpected. Then on to level 2, and the same thing, once I figured how to beat it, I would never lose if I wanted to win. But, if I tried something totally new for an opening, it would win again for a while. But, once you got up to about level 6 - 9, it was so relentless and mistake free, that it took me playing the same opening over and over until I finally found a way to beat it using that opening.
Now, you factor in the advance in numbers of calculations per second that have come since then, and my chances are slim and none on anything but a rudimentary level.
When the next paradigm shift comes along, like molecular based processors for instance, it may combine massive calculations per second with something very close to AI. It will be like playing a super Spock. I believe AI will eventually (must eventually) dwarf our ability to compete (sorry Fred) in just about any endevour. Just on sheer numbers alone.
rd
