Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:58:55 04/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 20, 2002 at 19:53:13, Uri Blass wrote: >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 I can add that I did not say that I do not understand the fact that there are people who are interested in the new tablebases(I know that for example correspondence players may use them to analyze their game) I only meant to say that generally I doubt if people feel more happy because of the tablebases. 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.