Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:20:48 02/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2004 at 10:05:19, Bob Durrett wrote: >On February 22, 2004 at 08:46:27, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 22, 2004 at 08:27:55, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I am not talking about situation when we prove theretical result but about >>>situation when all comp-comp games at 120/40 time control between top programs >>>are drawn. > >I guess you assume tournament books where the chess-playing program only plays >the best opening moves? Otherwise, games might be won or lost just because the >opening book move was inferior. I assume that the programs of the beginning of 2050 are not going to use opening books unless the position was already analyzed by them in the past because in general analysis by chess program is going to lead to better moves than book moves. > >There is also a phenomena seen in a recent computer chess tournament where the >programmer for one engine that lost said something like "the opponent engine >simply out-searched my engine" [paraphrased]. In other words, the idea is that >deeper searching provides better chess moves. For the time to come when no >chess engine loses, it would be necessary that the moves found be "good enough" >so that a deeper-searcher could not get a decisive advantage. Yes. The idea of >"accumulation of small advantages" is relevant here. The deeper searcher may >consistently find moves which are slightly better so that there is, over the >whole game, an accumulation of small advantages sufficient to win. > >Bob D. The point is that I guess that in less than 50 years the programs are going to be so strong that there will not let the opponent to get enough small advantage to win and the only difference between top programs may be in the ability of them to beat weaker opponents. 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.