Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 23:39:55 09/19/03
Go up one level in this thread
On September 19, 2003 at 20:16:46, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 19, 2003 at 19:14:00, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>Some people here have a naive idea of what a Supercomputer can do. >> >>To search a fairly balanced opening position very DIEP is absurd. >>Any correspondence master will come up with much better results in the same >>time. > >I think that you overevaluate correspondence masters. > >I played some games against ICCF correspondence IM's SIM's and one GM and I did >not get the feeling that they are in general better than computers and I got the >feeling that in part of the cases they were simply oursearched by my programs. Probably they had also some other things to do (to earn a living for example) or did not use Computers to analyze. I stick to my opinion. A correspondence Master (with the help of a modern PC and a couple of modern programs of course) should get more valuable results at a lower price in the same time (>5h). Otherwise ICCF should deprive him of his title. >I also think that you underestimate the potential of computers that is clearly >better than what they do today. I dont underestimate the potential of computers at all. > >The question is not what computers can do(they can do every task better than >you) No they cant. but what programmers know to teach them. > > >> >>Would 500 cpu's Diep be able to solve (or at least to win) this position: >> >>[D] 5k2/4R3/2K3p1/4BbPn/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 89 >> >>I assume it would shuffle around the white pieces for another 50 moves. > >I do not know and prefer to assume nothing. >It is a bad idea to assume things about thing that you know nothing about its >evaluation. > >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.