Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:53:13 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 19:16:01, Russell Reagan wrote: >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? Computers may be fast enough to solve chess but it is not going to happen in the near future and they will not be fast enough to solve every game. > >>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? Why do we need to solve chess. If chess is solved by computer programs then I am afraid that computer chess is going to die. I do not think that it is important to help people to create better chess programs by hardware and the main thing that is needed for generating the 6 piece tablebases is big hardware with a lot of memory. Helping chess programs by making everyone of them perfect is going to destroy computer chess. I believe that it is not going to happen in the next 50 years but I believe that getting closer to perfect by making chess program perfect in 6 piece and 7 piece positions may reduce the interest in computer chess. > >>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". Were did I say that I am the all knowing? > >>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. This can be solved with no tablebases and programs without tablebases knew a long time ago the right techniques. The big hardware of nalimov is not needed for it. > >>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. He does not need to generate the tablebases in order to use the algorithms. If the target is 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 did not say that the tablebases have no purpose. I said that I do not understand the purpose of wasting a lot of hours only to make them free. Nalimov does not earn money from the tablebases when other people who sell CD's with tablebases earn money. Uri
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.