4 ms·
I don't think this refutes the argument. You've just explained that the process by which you play chess is by calculation. In essence, you're doing something yo
by gnode 8y ago
I don't think this refutes the argument. You've just explained that the process by which you play chess is by calculation. In essence, you're doing something you could program a machine to do (without any learning component).
The question is: how do you explain how you have an original idea, or learn something you previously had no conceptualisation of.
I think chess is a poor example at a professional level, because players have learnt mainly from analysis of other's techniques, rather than mostly making their own inferences. How a novice plays chess, inventing as they go, because they cannot draw on extensive experience, would be a better analogy, in my opinion.
- mindgam3 8y ago"how do you explain how you have an original idea, or learn something you previously had no conceptualisation of" This is like "where does your chess intuition come from" - and what I'm trying to express is that my chess intuition isn't actually a black box. There is a set of heuristics which I follow in order to come up with these "original ideas". Some of these I learned from watching other great players. Others I learned through trial and error, by playing tons of games, just like AlphaZero. The difference between me and AlphaZero is I can describe these heuristics conceptually in a way that anyone can understand, without resorting to "it's because this move tended to work in a large portion of the million games I played".