Author: Álvaro Begué
Date: 10:16:11 10/19/04
Go up one level in this thread
On October 19, 2004 at 06:47:40, martin fierz wrote: >On October 19, 2004 at 06:06:05, Daniel Clausen wrote: > >>On October 19, 2004 at 05:57:06, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >> >>[snip] >> >>>In a few years no humans will have a chance (under current rules). Computers >>>still have huge strategic holes - there is a lot of progress still to be made. >>>Chess is tactical enough that a 15-ply search compensates in practice for all >>>sorts of strategic deficiency. It's hard to beat somebody who is stronger than >>>you tactically. >>> >>>It's a sort of interesting accident that computer vs human is balanced at the >>>moment. If the game was more tactical, humans would already be crushed and we >>>would accept it as a matter of course. If it was more positional, humans would >>>still be stronger, maybe much stronger. >> >>*agrees to everything* :) >> >>A game more tactical than Chess is Othello (also called Reversi) where humans >>have no chance since many years. A game less tactical is Go, where the best >>computers play like weak amateurs. > >is that so? isn't it just that the branching factor in othello is much smaller >than in chess, while in go it is much larger? That might play a role, but it isn't the whole story at all. Go on a 9x9 board has branching factor comparable to chess, and programs are still pretty lame at it. > >and another question: do you think if we were to reduce the tactical content of >chess by removing the queens in the starting position, would the computers get >much weaker? > >cheers > martin > >>Personally I don't think it's very interesting to know whether computers get >>stronger than humans five years ago, today or in five years (in chess). But I >>seem to be in the minority here. >> >>Sargon
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.