Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 06:39:53 04/24/98
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 1998 at 02:30:12, Don Gaetke wrote: > >On April 23, 1998 at 23:33:33, Robert Hyatt wrote: > > >>>>IMHO, you should change 6 months to a year to 6-10 years. The Micros >>>>are *not* a factor of two away from playing evenly with GM players yet. >>>>Not even close... >>> >>>Oh? Well don't tell GM Larry C. that, or any of the "weak" GM's who >>>lost at AEGON then. >>> >> >>you are aware that Aegon was not the usual 40/2 or 40/2.5 hour time >>control? that makes a difference... >> >> > >Yes, but this is REALLY splitting hairs now. If this can be used to >define the difference between winning and losing against strong programs >these days, then equality is closer at hand than even I was suggesting! > >Don't get me wrong Bob, I'm pulling for the humans, and fully expect the >best humans to _always_ prevail in a true sit down knock down >concentrated tournament rules match, but, such an event will by it's >very occurance proclaim equality of a serious sort. To suggest >equality, is, you must agree, not the same as superiorty. > >I believe that chess as grasped by it's finest players, will forever >live up to it's deeply venerated, mystical, and ancient time tested >past. Chess I believe, is more than the sum of it's parts, reflecting >eternal human qualities that a computer can never be master of. Strong >words from a guy who on the surface sounds pro computer, no? > > Several points.. one, there were GM's, all the way down to non-titled players playing there. The time control is short and ends in sudden- death. There's lots of "fun things going on" as opposed to a tournament like Linares where everyone is *dead serious." >> >>>> >>>>We already have a PII/400 at the office. Intel says 450 late this >>>>year, and (possibly) Merced next year. We already have machines as >>>>fast as merced... they are spelled "alpha"... no one's *close* to a >>>>GM yet... >>> >>>There is something in the works related to copper technology as a "new >>>conductor" for computer hardware. The result will be an entirely new >>>level of speed formerly unheard of in PCs. The claim is that 1000mhz+ >>>CPU's speeds will be easily obtainable in the near future, i.e. within >>>12-24 months. >>> >>>Don >> >> >> >>"easily" is the wrong word. there are other serious problems to >>overcome >>besides propogation delays across gates. IE GAs was touted as the same >>type of breakthrough as the new IBM copper announcement. But running >>things >>at 1ghz is a different animal from running something at 500mhz... >>surface >>effects become frightening when you talk about microwave frequencies. >>Note >>that radar antennaes don't use coax cable.. they use "waveguides" >>because >>cable won't work at those frequencies... >> >>I think this is going to be interesting of course, but DEC already has >>gigahertz stuff running. prototype G4 chips are nearing 1ghz as well, >>with at least one running at 800mhz right now. But those are only a >>factor of 2 or 3 beyond where we are now, discounting the fact that we >>have >>no memory faster today than 10 years ago. And a factor of 2-3 won't >>turn >>today's programs into tomorrow's super-GM players... you only have to >>watch >>them play to see how little they understand excepting for tactics... > >No real argument here Bob. I believe that the human factor >(i.e.survival) is and will remain the one thing that will continue to >tip the scales in "our" favor. There are no true silicon replacements >for the will to survive. It is the active ingredient, and prime >motivator that allows even this vastly inferior chess player to >occasionally whip the silicates out of a so called 2450 rated computer. >Something that I can never imagine doing to say,,,IM Mike Valvo for >example. ;-) > >But mark my words, the day is comming sooner than we think, when only >the very best of "us" will stand a prayer against these chess mocking >silicon idiot savants. > >Side note: How I would have loved to see the likes of the great Lasker >or Capablanca or Fischer eat the machines for lunch. > >Don While I agree with you, the "very best" are called GM's... and they know *so much more* about chess than all the current programs put together. You only have to watch... programs find cute swindles... and even an occasional attack, but the GM's are better players in every facet of the game if they don't play in games where they make tactical mistakes due to time shortages... It's still amazing to watch them play. IE I watched anat (GM on ICC) play 4 games against Rebel 8 last Sat or Sun on ICC, the time control was something like 15 10 or some such, and he won all 4. I watched him play 2 games against Junior (4.6 I suspect) and he won both. I've also seen him play Ferret and Crafty (and others) and get wiped out. But for these games, he seemed to be playing seriously and he simply squeezed the programs around the neck until they died. The Rebel operator was playing logged in as a "guest"... and at one point he said Rebel thought it was winning by +1.2... I played over the game with Crafty later and it agreed. And *both* were wrong... Don't write the GM players off just yet... and don't over-estimate just how strong the programs are. They are strong.. but they are tactically strong and positionally weak, and that hasn't changed a lot in 10 years...
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.