Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 13:43:52 11/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 08, 2000 at 03:22:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 07, 2000 at 10:26:21, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On November 06, 2000 at 16:21:54, Christophe Theron wrote: >> >>>On November 06, 2000 at 16:13:43, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On November 06, 2000 at 15:17:32, Jonathan Lee wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 06, 2000 at 01:43:48, Christophe Theron wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On November 05, 2000 at 15:33:57, Jonathan Lee wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>I understand Walter Irvin's point of view of contemporary greats versus >>>>>>>the others point of view who are talking about influential greats. >>>>>>>It would be safe to say that the 20th century influential greats (such as >>>>>>>Richard Lang) are a SUBSET of the year 2000 contemporary greats listed _some_ by >>>>>>>Walter Irvin. >>>>>>>Grandmasters in gigahertz: Just tell me how many gigahertz will it take to >>>>>>>equal Kramnik. >>>>>>>Jonathan (83rd message) >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>500MHz will be enough. Not with current programs, but in several years software >>>>>>improvements will compensate. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Christophe >>>>>500 GHZ >>>>>Jonathan (86th message) >>>> >>>>I am not christophe but I am almost sure that he means 500 mhz and not 500GHZ. >>>>I suspect that 500GHZ may be enough with the best programs of today. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>I meant 500MHz. >>> >>>500GHz is enough with programs of ten years ago. >>> >>> >>> >>> Christophe >> >>I don't believe this. DB ran at the equivalent of this speed and had real >>problems. DB2 also ran at this speed and did much better. I don't think that >>a 10 year old program would beat Kramnik, Kasparov, etc on most any hardware. >>I don't believe today's programs would be anywhere near unbeatable at 500ghz >>either. They would definitely be tactically strong. But they would still be >>making the _same_ positional mistakes they always make. > >I disagree. >They will avoid part of the positional mistakes because of search. >They do not need to see losing material in order to do it but only losing >something positional that they understand. > >I am not sure if programs of today on 500Gh are going to beat kramnik but it is >not clear that it is not going to happen. > >Uri Yes... But a very good program like GT will still trade into what it thinks is a pawn up endgame, only to find a while later it is dead lost. Or a program like Crafty will strive to prevent a blocked pawn center, and as a result, end up with an isolated pawn that later falls along with the game. Or a program like Rebel will overlook the consequences of a passive move and 10 moves later discover its king is on the rocks. Etc. There are _plenty_ of positions that aren't solvable by search. Some are, of course. But endings are particularly immune to this kind of solution. you have to know (a) it is winnable or it is lost; (b) how to win it; in order to not make ugly mistakes. I'd hate to say how many times I have seen GM players draw the older Tiger because of the mistake Christophe knew about, namely bishop + wrong rook pawn(s). So long as that kind of hole exists in a program, strong humans will find it. And exploit it. yes, they will lose a game tactically here and there. But I find that most GM games are not solved by tactics unless the GM allows it. In _those_ games you have to be armed with more than simple search. I used to have a trade-down penalty, in fact. I no longer do this. Because I no longer fear playing GMs in endings. Not that I win them all. But I don't lose very many in silly fashion. I have just as good chances in the endings as I do in the middlegame, so rather than burying a bishop to keep it on, Crafty will trade it when appropriate.
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.