Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 09:01:03 07/01/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 01, 2000 at 11:47:50, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>I guess that we are not going to have in 5-7 years 8 pieces tablebases. >> >>I guess that we will even not have the complete 7 pieces tablebases in 5-7 >>years. >> >>calculating the 5 piece tablebases can take at least some weeks and maybe more >>than a month in the hardare of today(calculating only one 5 piece simple >>tablebase with no pawns like KQR vs KR takes few hours on my pentiumIII450 and >>there are many tablebases to calculate when most of them takes more time). >> >>calculating all the 6 piece tablesbases will take more time in the hardware of >>2007 without parallel search(I assume that computers are twice faster every 18 >>monthes so computers will be less than 30 times faster). >> >>parallel search can help but I do not believe it will be enough to generate all >>the 7 piece tablebases in 2007. >> >>There is also a problem of memory and I do not believe that there will be enough >>memory for the 8 piece tablebases in 2007 >> >>Uri > > >Uri, > >You may be correct sir. We have eight to ten piece tablebases in checkers now >but there is a big jump in complexity between chess and checkers. Chinook, the >world champion checker computer system beats all but the top ten checker players >in the world and then it usually draws them. Pretty hard to beat a machine that >says "I win in 100 moves" when you both have three pieces left and the position >"looks" equal. > >It is just a matter of a few years before no human will beat the computers at >chess. It is sure a bunch of fun getting there. When we get there I am sure >that we will have more exciting things to do with our computers. > >Tim Frohlick Chinook is better at checkers than anything else on the planet -- by a wide margin. Dave
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.