Author: odell hall
Date: 16:58:39 07/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 16, 2001 at 19:50:07, Terry McCracken wrote: >On July 16, 2001 at 00:58:25, Tanya Deborah wrote: > >>On July 15, 2001 at 14:54:52, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 15, 2001 at 12:37:02, Terry McCracken wrote: >>> >>>>On July 15, 2001 at 11:36:39, Otello Gnaramori wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 15, 2001 at 10:57:47, Terry McCracken wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 15, 2001 at 07:58:10, odell hall wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>Give both technology and programming another 5 years and I believe by then we'll >>>>>>have _solid_ GM 2600+ chess playing monsters! >>>>>> >>>>>>Terry >>>>> >>>>>That is truly an interesting point. >>>>>If it is just a matter of time let's just wait and see. >>>>>But probably Terry you are omitting some interesting signals coming from >>>>>Argentina. IMHO it is a sign that we are approaching that 2600 line very quickly >>>>>and some top program is probably already there in a certain configuration. The >>>>>match with Huebner can also contribute to clarify better the current "state of >>>>>the art" in computer chess since it is played at tournament time setting and Dr. >>>>>Huebner is an anticomps specialist. >>>>> >>>>>Regards. >>>> >>>>Thanks for your reply, Mr. Gnaramori. >>>> >>>>No, I considered the event in Argentina, but that doesn't convince me, we need >>>>much more data, before we can establish whether or not computers/chessprograms, >>>>really _are_ 2600 or better. I do agree that the _gap_ is certainly closing! >>>>The five year mark is a _cautious_ estimate. >>>>Actually in might be possible for programs to reach 2800 in the next 5 years, >>>>but that IMO is an optimistic guess!;) >>> >>>No this is not the optimistic guess. >>> >>>The optimistic guess is my guess >>>My guess is that you need to wait less time for it. >>> >>>My guess is that good chess programs can also teach the best humans to play >>>better so getting 2800 or even 2900 is not going to be enough to be number 1 in >>>the world. >>> >>>Uri >> >> >> >>Garry Kasparov, the best player in the world for many years, said that the best >>computer programs today, in a fast machine are clearly at GM level.(2600 elo to >>up). he also said that sometimes in closed positions, generally the machine >>played more weak, but also like a computer programs, the humans have also very >>weak points in their play that many times the computers dont have. Computers are >>clearly stronger than any human in Tactics, this is clear. Humans are also >>good, but they are very far to the power of the machine to see some great >>tactics combinations. Tactics are like other people said here, very very >>important. You could be a great positional player, but if you miss a tactical >>shot in some position, you could lose the game very fast. >> >> The point is that Garry Kasparov said, and is completely sure, that Computer >>programs play at GM Level in a fast Computer. This no need more discussion, >>Computers programs are clearly at GM level. And soon, in a couple of years, we >>will have a program that play at Super GM strenght. This is really inevitable. >>We need to acept the challenge. Computers are time to time stronger, and >>stronger. > >There's always room for discussion Tanya;) > >Regardless, I would agree the best programs on the fastest hardware _are_ at the >GM level, and I doubt many will argue that today.(2500 is the beginning of the >GM Class) >Still it will be a few more years before computers are equal to the top GM's >and still a few more years after that, superior to the very best, including the >WCC, IMO. >In a decade it will all be academic, I feel. Still the human spirit is strong, >and even in 2010 I wouldn't count the very best out, but we'll see. > >Terry I agree, they still Can't get with the top 100 humans, but they are grandmasters. (Strength not title).
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.