I’m fed up with idiots who has their hair on fire about how Artificial Intelligence (AI) is going to kill us all. It won’t, because Artificial Intelligence doesn’t exist. Natural stupidity is the real danger…

We will begin this series with a statement that I have made before: The sinister Centralized Hierarchical Political Matrix controls the people by imposing terminology that has nothing to do with the truth, and which creates a virtual world – if you accept the terminology, you have accepted to live in a lie!

We will return to this statement throughout the series. To begin with, in this text we will make an introduction to the demystification of ‘Artificial Intelligence’ by dispelling the crowning ‘proof’ purported by the people who do not know what they are talking about: “Man can no longer beat a machine in chess!” Nonsense…

This statement implies that chess is a game of intelligence, so according to his interpretation, ‘Artificial Intelligence’ has already surpassed human intelligence. Wrong on at least three counts:

1. Chess is not a game of intelligence, but a game of memory.

2. Intelligence cannot be measured by only one highly abstract game of memory, no matter how complicated it may be.

3. It is not true that man cannot beat a chess machine

For a more detailed explanation of the first point, just follow the link – the text is in English.

Regarding the second point – it is easy to see that the machine has no intelligence from the following example. This is a game played on LiChess between users smurfo (white) and ukchessbomber (black). After the 28th move, the following position was created:

Even the average chess beginner will easily judge this position as completely winning for white. However, the strongest chess machine in the world at the moment – Stockfish – declares this position at the first glance as convincingly better for black, and even by 5.6 points! Roughly the rook and pawn advantage. Then, after some ‘thinking’, Stockfish changes his ‘mind’ and declared the position – a draw!

The example makes it perfectly clear that there is no intelligence involved. Chess machines have two elements: Database and Search Module. The power of the chess machine depends on the amount of information (positions) in the database, on the efficiency of the search algorithm and on the processing power of the platform on which the search algorithm is executed. So there is no intelligence inside it, except the one which the programmers of the machine had. The machine itself cannot think or learn. It only knows how to enter every new game that is played on Lichess into the database, and thus make it available to the search module.

It is a fairly simple concept of an expert system. Simple because it is based on a relatively small number of clear rules that only need to be executed in the shortest possible time.

Knowing this, can we find a weak point in that expert system? Of course! It’s not true that people can’t beat him – it’s just that whenever you beat him, you’re actually leaving him with a new data input that the system will use in the his database so that he can’t be defeated the same way next time.

Here's how Jonathan Schrantz, a chess instructor from Saint Louis, a man who doesn't even have a FIDE rating, beats him. On LiChess, his account is zolpi, and he has a strong National Master rating, around 2300 ELO points. He uses unusual opening gambits, and a short time control that doesn’t allow the machine too much time to search the base. Here’s an example:

And he is not an exception who can do this. Anna Kramling used her Cow opening and the analysis she got from that same Stockfish – to find its weak spot!

This chess-like introduction was necessary for the sake of the point – we are certainly not talking about Artificial Intelligence, but about a highly developed expert system.

In the following posts, we will present what features true artificial intelligence should have, the dangers looming behind the developed expert system, we’ll talk about the philosophical-ethical aspects of development, and most importantly, answering the question: Why would someone stick a false label that says 'Artificial Intelligence' on the developed expert system?

Stay tuned!