Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 16:16:01 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 18:30:19, Uri Blass wrote: >It is not interesting. > >It is clear that if the computer is fast enough it can solve chess. >The real question is what to do when you have not computer that is fast enough. Why is that the "real" question? >The case of 120 move combination already happens in tablebases thanks to people >like nalimov who use a lot of computer time to investigate these endgame and I >do not understand the purpose. Maybe he wants to solve chess? Maybe he'd like to help create better chess programs? Did any thought go through your mind when making these statements? >I could understand building tablebases for a private program in order to win >a competition but I do not see a reason to waste a lot of hours of computer time >only to give tablebases for free. Again, I'm sure he has a reason or he wouldn't be doing it. Just because you don't see the reason doesn't mean there isn't one. Contrary to what you think, you're not the "all knowing Uri Blass". >Helping chess players? >I doubt if it helps much. > >What do chess players earn from it except frustration when they see a mate in >200 in some KRB vs KBN when even after hours of analysis they cannot understand >the idea of the moves? Improvement is gradual. Trying to analyze a mate in 200 is ridiculous and of course no one would try to do that currently. Maybe someone would like to play against a perfect computer to learn how to play a K+N+B vs. K endgame. >Uri I have news for you Uri. Not everyone in the world is interested in the same things that you are. Just because you don't understand why someone else is interested in something why does that make it so bad? You declaring something to be uninteresting doesn't mean anything to anyone but yourself. Other people may find it perfectly interesting. As far as what Eugene is doing, it's not only chess related. The algorithms involved in storing and retrieving that much data are quite clever and could be used for other things in computing. Needless to say it is quite clear you put no thought into your comments. There are plenty of reasons for all of the things that you deemed "pointless". I really don't think ANYONE (besides you) cares whether or not YOU find these things interesting or not, or whether YOU think they have a purpose, because it's easy to see that they do have a purpose, even if it's one you aren't capable of grasping. I know for sure I wasn't sitting at home thinking, "I wonder if Uri Blass thinks endgame tablebases serve a purpose." Be involved in the things that interest you. If something doesn't interest you why bash it? They do server a purpose whether you think they do or not. Chess is to many simply a way of testing out ideas in AI and studying how databases work, and many other applications I'm sure that I can't think of at the moment. Some things are true whether you believe them or not. Russell
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.