> why would brute forcing tons of chess moves would be intelligence and not search. Aren't ANN just some kind of brute forcing, just that this time brute forcin

> why would brute forcing tons of chess moves would be intelligence and not search. Aren't ANN just some kind of brute forcing, just that this time brute forcing happens at training time. Right, so it's okay for humans to spend literally years training their biological neural networks, throughout their entire lives. And in addition to that spend thousands of hours honing skill such as chess (we'll call it "practice"). But when a machine starts from nothing and does the same, suddenly it's not intelligence, we don't call it "practice", we call it "brute forcing at training time". > True intelligence could reason and adapt, the AI should be able to play any chess variant I invent without new training or if it is that smart should be able to defeat a human at any new task for both of them. Sure, let's take chess, and modify the rules. At the start of your turn flip a coin, on heads: pawns can move left and right instead of forward. On tails: swap one of your own pawns with a pawn of your opponent. Will our chess grandmasters pick up this new game immediately without new training, or will they struggle initially? Your requirements for artificial intelligence are much higher than for ordinary human intelligence.