Author: José Carlos
Date: 01:44:45 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 25, 2001 at 12:33:45, Christophe Theron wrote: [snip] >You can go even further and imagine what could happen if programs are given an >"almost" infinite time. They do not need high chess knowledge anymore. They just >need to know the basic rules and to be able to identify a checkmate when it >happens, because given enough time you can see all the forced lines from the >beginning to the end of the game. Then would you say that a program with almost >no chess knowledge is as good as one with a lot of knowledge just because, given >enough time, they are almost equal? > >Certainly not. Ok, now imagine the opposite situation: a program with an "almost perfect" evaluation, that takes a lot of days to compute for each postion. With "really fast" hardware, you can make the program generate all the initial moves, evaluate them and say "e4. mate in 67". Would you say that this program (unable to evaluate even a position under normal tournament conditions) is a bad one? Nonsense, both your and my statement. José C. >Now you understand why I always find extremely doubtful the claims that a given >program needs longer time controls or more processor power in order to achieve >its full strength. It is either not true (people claiming this have not played >enough games to demonstrate their point), or it is true and in this case it >simply shows that the program in question SUCKS. > > > > Christophe
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.