Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 4.3bsd-beta 6/6/85; site ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!ucbvax!sri-ai.arpa!AIList-REQUEST From: AIList-REQUEST@SRI-AI.ARPA (AIList Moderator Kenneth Laws) Newsgroups: mod.ai Subject: AIList Digest V3 #162 Message-ID: <8511050734.AA04639@ucb-vax.berkeley.edu> Date: Tue, 5-Nov-85 00:10:00 EST Article-I.D.: ucb-vax.8511050734.AA04639 Posted: Tue Nov 5 00:10:00 1985 Date-Received: Tue, 5-Nov-85 23:37:38 EST Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Reply-To: AIList@SRI-AI Organization: The ARPA Internet Lines: 224 Approved: ailist@ucbvax.berkeley.edu AIList Digest Tuesday, 5 Nov 1985 Volume 3 : Issue 162 Today's Topics: Games - ACM Computer Chess Championship, Expert Systems - DARPA Funds KEE, Opinion - AIList Discussion Style & Definition of AI & Japanese Fith-Generation Motives ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat 2 Nov 85 19:16:33-PST From: Stuart CracraftSubject: ACM Computer Chess Championship [Forwarded from the MIT bboard by SASW@MIT-MC.] The annual slug-fest of machine against machine in the game of chess has produced a new champion while in the same process dethroning CRAY BLITZ which ran on multiple, parallel, CRAY processors. The new champion, by a perfect 4-0 score against its opponents, is HITECH at Carnegie-Mellon, searching 175,000 chess positions per second. Below are reproduced descriptions of the participants including the names of the computer chess programs, the authors, their affiliation, the type of hardware used, and the number of nodes the particular program searches per second. The time control for this is usually about 2 or 3 minutes per move so you can multiply the nodes per second by 3x60 to get the total nodes executed by a program in order to find its chess move (on the average). In recent years, this number has been on the order of 10^7. There are various schools of thought which believe that this will have to increase by several orders of magnitude before an artificial player will defeat the human champion, unless significant breakthroughs in chess knowledge representation are achieved. Also, in recent years, the best computer chess programs have barely passed the National Master ranking. That is, they have achieved a rating of 2200. The human champion is normally rated beyond 2700. The relationship of processor speed to ratings has been determined to be about 100 points per factor of 2 increase in processor speed, at least in the range up to a 2000 rating. There is some suspicion that beyond this level, the relationship is not linear, although this has not yet been shown by sufficient analysis, either empirical or theoretical. Stuart Cracraft (cracraft@isi-vaxa) ------------- The following information was provided by the author of Phoenix. PROGRAM AUTHOR AFFILIATION HARDWARE N/S _______ ______ ___________ ________ ___ Awit Tony Marsland University of Alberta Amdahl 5860 10 Bebe Tony Scherzer SYS-10 Inc., Chicago Custom Chess 20,000 Engine Chaos Mike Alexander University of Michigan Amdahl 5860 70 Fred Swartz Jack O'Keefe Cray Blitz Robert Hyatt University of Southern Cray X-MP 100,000 Albert Gower Mississippi (4 CPUs) Harry Nelson Hitech Carl Ebeling Carnegie-Melon Special pur- 175,000 Hans Berliner pose hardware Gordon Goetsch Andy Palay Murray Campbell Larry Slomer Intelligent Mark Taylor Intelligent Software Apple IIE 500 Software David Levy Kevin O'Connell Lachex Burton Wendroff Los Alamos Laboratory Cray X-MP 50,000 Ostrich Monty Newborn McGill University 8 Data General 1,200 computers Phoenix Jonathan Schaeffer University of Alberta 4 VAX 11/780s 2,000 6 SUN workstations Spoc Jacques Middlecoff SDI/Cypress Software IBM PC 300 ------------------------------ Date: Mon 4 Nov 85 09:25:01-PST From: Ken Laws Subject: DARPA Funds KEE From Expert Systems, Vol 2., No. 3, July 1985, p. 166: IntelliCorp has recently been awarded a DARPA contract to develop a prototype expert system development tool. The tool will be used by the Department of Defense, related government agencies, and contractors working on DARPA-funded projects. The contract is worth $1 million to IntelliCorp and will take two years to complete. The new system will be based on a refined version of KEE, incorporating new knowledge representation techniques. IntelliCorp sees limitations in current ways of representing knowledge as being the limiting factor in developing more powerful expert systems. New techniques will allow the full diversity of an expert's knowledge to be used. IntelliCorp will retain exclusive ownership of the KEE system around which the new tool will be built. The compiled version of KEE will be sublicenced to the Department of Defense, related agencies, and DARPA- funded contractors. Ownership of the remainder of the new system will be shared by IntelliCorp and DARPA, with the company retaining exclusive rights to its further release and commercialisation. ------------------------------ Date: Thu 31 Oct 85 19:07:57-PST From: Gary Martins Subject: Contributions of "AI" ? A recent issue of AIList [#156] carries a highly emotional message from Mr. Chris Welty in defense of "AI". The message is entitled "Contributions of AI". Wouldn't you expect such a message to refer to some real contributions of "AI" ? Instead, it contains: * idle speculations about the relationship between my wife and Prof. Minsky * complaints about his morning mail * educational advice * finally, the usual vague, abstract "AI" blah about all kinds of contributions "AI" has made to the world; Mr. Welty says the list is too long to provide in full -- and so he provides no specific information of any kind I cannot pretend to help Mr. Welty with all of these problems. I think he should adopt a "wait and see" posture on the first point. Perhaps a scrolling terminal will help with #2. Advice duly noted. As for the same old "AI" gobbledegook: CAN'T YOU BE MORE SPECIFIC ? ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 2 Nov 85 14:26:53 pst From: ames!eugene@RIACS.ARPA Subject: Re: Minsky's definition of AI (really definition of I) Interesting posting. I'm not doing AI work, but I have something to share. Two weeks ago on the plane down to JPL/Caltech, I read a very interesting definition of "Intelligence" in the airline's magazine (PSA). Intelligence is the ability to simultaneously hold two contradictory thoughts in one's head. I am working on parallelism, and I sort of like that definition. >From the Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers: --eugene miya NASA Ames Research Center {hplabs,ihnp4,dual,hao,decwrl,allegra}!ames!aurora!eugene emiya@ames-vmsb ------------------------------ Date: Thu 31 Oct 85 15:21:39-EST From: Steven M. Kearns Subject: The Japanese are Coming! THE JAPANESE ARE CONTROLLING THE WORLD - FUN, FICTION, OR FACT? Here is proof that fiction is actually stranger than truth: the first "correct" exposition of the true goals of the Japanese Fifth Generation program. Actually, this is a fun look at some of the Fifth Generation Hype that might leave you wondering "what if it is true???" (Q1) QUESTION: Why the "open architecture" of the Japanese Fifth Generation effort? Why tell the world exactly what the goals are, the money to be spent, and the principal goals to be pursued? (A1) The Japanese have stated in their Fifth Generation propoganda material that the security of Japan in the future depends on transforming the structure of today's economy. Nowadays it is resource based; Japan would like it to be information based. The reasons for this are clear. Japan imports something like > 90% of their fuel and food. In a war, their enemies could stop these shipments, while Japan could only threaten to cut off next years shipment of remote control VCRs. In addition, Japan has a severe space shortage. Material resources take up critical space, while information does not. If Japan had the power to transform the world economy by themselves, they would. But the truth is, they do not have the resources to do it by themselves. To do so requires mobilizing the world - and in high tech the "world" means the United States. So the Japanese were very clever. By committing a small amount of money (< 1 billion over 10 years, I believe) and publicizing it as much as possible, they managed to steer the lumbering giant of the United States, and the rest of the world, in the direction that they wanted. In effect, the Japanese are investing a little money, and in return they get to mobilize ALOT of money in a way that benefits them the most. And none of the money that they invest is wasted either: if the Japanese Fifth Generation program does provide a significant advance, they get to finally shake the unfair label of "imitators, not creators". If no major advance results, they are at least ready to exploit the successes of the rest of the world. Let's look at some facts that support this theory. As already mentioned, the Japanese committment is less than 1 billion over 10 years. In contrast, IBM's R&D budget is something like one and a half billion EVERY YEAR. And though I do not know the specific data, I would suspect that the defense department's Fifth Generation budget is of similar order of magnitude (after all, the defense budget is now 300 Billion). Finally, there are the contributions from other countries of the world such as Britain and France, which have now mounted efforts comparable to Japan's. Thus, all of the gloom and doomers warning about the onslaught of the Japanese are actually aiding the Japanese' cause. -steve kearns (kearns@cs.columbia.edu) ------------------------------ End of AIList Digest ********************