Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!snorkelwacker!usc!samsung!umich!caen.engin.umich.edu!srvr1!zarnuk
From: zarnuk@caen.engin.umich.edu (Paul Steven Mccarthy)
Newsgroups: comp.ai
Subject: Re: Functional definition of "understanding" vs 'Peeking inside'
Keywords: functional definitions, understanding, explanations
Message-ID: <1990Apr9.042828.18176@caen.engin.umich.edu>
Date: 9 Apr 90 04:28:00 GMT
References: <c4Rk02dr8dI001@amdahl.uts.amdahl.com> <23100@mimsy.umd.edu> <1990Mar19.153959.6113@sjuphil.uucp> <0541@sheol.UUCP> <1990Mar26.155415.21756@sjuphil.uucp> <0556@sheol.UUCP> <1990Apr3.162019.27598@maths.tcd.ie> <1990Apr5.202224.27534@caen.en <19 <201@mtiame
Sender: news@caen.engin.umich.edu (Mr. Usenet)
Organization: University of Michigan, Ann Arbor
Lines: 19

In article <201@mtiame.oz> jep@mtiame.oz (Jesper Peterson) writes:

>Is the ability to apply _understanding_ of one system to a similar
>system a feature of understanding?
>
>e.g. Brute force program v. Kasparov in game of chess. The judge says for
>this match only, the board will be 8x9 squares. Kasparov undoubtedly uses
>_brute force_ for his openings but will now have to rely on _true_
>understanding. The program is hopelessly lost and dumps core.
>
>Perhaps *I* don't understand :-)

Good point.  However, 8x9 boards are not chess.  (And changing the board
even in this apparently cosmetic manner makes fundamental differences in
the applicable strategies and tactics of the game.)  But as long as
we're studying the "variations" (couldn't resist), how would an "insight"
program perform any better?

--- Paul... (o-o-o -- Queen's side castle)