Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 21:38:41 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. Faster speeds ARE the be all and end all of _calculation_. >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. Often said, but actually a staggering overgeneralization. >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. Unsubstantiated claim. IMO incorrect as well. >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) Kasparov says he has 4000 novelties stocked up. (Recent New In Chess that reported on Hoovegens 1999.) He chose not to use them, he lost. Take it on the chin, humanity. >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. Unsubstantiated claim. IMO incorrect as well. >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. Believe what you like, but adaptive algorithms have been around for a long time. Today's chess programs have rudimentary forms of adaptation built-in. This is not likely to go away. >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. Opinions are. (no quibble ==> you're free to yours) >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. Ditto. >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. Some will win, some will lose, the race will go on. >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 Dave Gomboc
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.