Letter: Deep Blue is not that clever
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: While the victory of Deep Blue over Garry Kasparov demonstrates that the machine certainly does play a mean game of chess, the implications for artificial intelligence are less clear.
Intelligence should be a measure of quality of thought, not speed of processing. A very simple program could be written to beat Kasparov provided it could run on a machine of sufficient (currently unobtainable) speed - just evaluate every possible move.
Kasparov's brain is said to process moves at two per second. The quality of his "program" - ie, intelligence - is such that it almost matches Deep Blue's program executed on a machine running at 200 million moves per second. Roughly speaking, that makes Kasparov 100 million times more "intelligent" than Deep Blue.
To make it a fair test of intelligence - not speed - slow down Deep Blue to two moves per second, run the same program and see who wins.
PETER EVANS
Bristol
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments