Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:01:52 08/31/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 31, 2000 at 15:56:18, stuart taylor wrote: >On August 31, 2000 at 15:45:47, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On August 31, 2000 at 15:06:24, Jonathan Lee wrote: >> >>>Title: Grandmaters in Gigahertz (catchy title, anagram) >>>What are the predictions for the IGM's? >>>I predict at 200 GHZ the IGM's will draw or lose >>>(40 moves in 2 hours and sudden death in 1 or 2 hours, standard tournament time >>>control). >>> >>>Then at 3,000 GHZ the IGM's will always lose. >>>(same time control as above 40mvs in 2hrs., SD in 1 or 2 hrs.) >> >>I do not believe it. >>I believe the number of the GHZ with the same software is not going to help >>always to win. >> >>If you get a draw position out of book no number of GH is going to help you to >>win. >> >>I also do not know if chess is complicated enough to let program to get 100% >>against GM's. >> >>Maybe you need to look for another game if you want programs to score 100% >> >>> >>>The software is there, but the hardware is lagging. >>>Jonathan (53rd message) >> >>I do not like crticizing the hardware. >>I believe that it is also correct that the hardware is fast enough to win all >>humans in a match and the software is the problem. >> >>Uri > >Chess, not complicated enough? If it can steer every game into complicated >tactics, then I think it IS complicated enough. Much more still, if it can get >into problem like positions. >S.Taylor I am not sure if humans cannot learn to avoid the complicated positions with white and get a draw. The fact that there are complicated positions that humans do not understand does not prove that they cannot avoid these positions in part of their games and get a draw. Uri
This page took 0 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.