Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 09:26:15 04/10/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 10, 1999 at 11:39:45, Keith Kitson wrote: >I don't think it is going to be quite as easy as is being suggested, for >Computers to usurp the current Human World Chess Champion. > >Here are some points I have collected over the years that lead me to say what I >do: > >1. Faster and faster speeds are not the B-all and End-all of chess calculation. >Chess knowledge also counts for a lot. In the beginning an increase in speed >did give a noticeable increase in results. But this was at lower ratings where >increases in speed can show good improvements. Eric Hallsworth believes the >same thing and has said so in his magazine (Selective Search) on numerous >occasions. > >2. We appear to have two main types of program, speed programs and knowledge >programs. The speed programs do not have extensive chess knowledge, therefore >fewer programming instrauctions therefore this program type can work through the >plies faster as there are not so many program instructions to execute against >each position. Knowledge programs on the other hand have relatively extensive >chess knowledge and work through the plies more slowly. They are slower for the >obvious reason that there are more program instructions to execute against each >ply. > >3. The law of diminishing returns appears to have come home to roost on the >speed programs. Even with increases in processing speed the knowledge programs >are winning more often. > >4. Although mainframe programs have received the glory for apparent amazing >results the games have been carefully engineered (i.e. no prematch analysis of >previous computer games, small game sample, non-tournament time controls, and no >rematch situation) > >5. PC programs have far superior knowledge to the mainframe programs. >Unfortunately because they run on slower hardware, and don't have the financial >backing that some mainframes have it has not been possible to convert a PC >program to run on a fast mainframe. > >6. If you gave the strongest GM in the world the opportunity to prepare properly >for a tournament against the strongest computers, with tournament time controls, >sufficient games to eliminate small sample freak results, access to all previous >games played by the computer (which is exactly what current human players have) >I believe there woul dbe no contest. Computers will continue playing with the >instructions they have, they cannot change their instructions, so a mistake is >always going to be a mistake. So computers assess and mark an error and will >not play that error again, but that depends on an astute assessment algorithm >that understands where the error occurred. Programs are not sophisticated >enough to determine the correct lines to avoid when errors occur in previous >games. But that is exactly where humans have their strength. In their ability >to change their approach and learn profoundly from their mistakes. Computers >are not in that league at the present. A Gm will play a few games and determine >where the weaknesses are then play to exploit the weaknesses, i do not see >computer programs, at the present time, using that technique to build up a >porfolio, if you like, of its opponent and forming a strategy to home in and >exploit the weaknesses. > That sort of thing can be done by a chess program. I think it is a difficult task to do it correctly and succesfully, but still it is a very interesting challenge which can improve actual results in competitions. >7. I feel we may be reaching a plateau in the development of chess programs. It >is becoming more difficult for chess programmers to find improvements in their >programs that produce a gain more than 50-80 ELO at best. > >8. the programmers are finding it tougher to build more strategy awareness into >the programs. It may be some years before strides are made forward in this >area. > >9. There is now a very real threat to further development of current chess >programs due to the price war currently raging in the industry which makes >return for investment very difficult to achieve. I am saddened to see this >happen. > >With these points I believe we have very real problems in developing a far >stronger program than we have at present. > >I hope we do overcome these problems but at the present time I cannot see a way >forward for large increases in strength. > >I reckon the best GMs can sleep at night they are not about to be ousted by a >computer world champion in the near future. > >Comments anyone. I'd be happy to read some. > >Keith Kitson
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.