Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 00:19:25 08/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 16, 1999 at 02:58:46, Will Singleton wrote:
>On August 15, 1999 at 04:47:50, Ed Schröder wrote:
>
>>GM's are by far superior when the topic is understanding the game of chess
>>and that will remain for a very long time and maybe even after 100 years.
>>
>
>Ed,
>
>It's great to see these games on ICC; I really like your initiative. I must
>disagree with your statement above, however. 100 years? Did you perhaps mean
>10 years?
>
>10 years ago, you were using perhaps a 68020 at 25 mhz. You are now running at
>600 mhz, effectively about 30x faster (considering cache etc). In 10 years we
>might have 20 ghz machines, which means that a 3 minute think today will take 6
>seconds then. This is not even considering advances in chess algorithms, which
>will certainly occur.
>
>So, I must take issue with your concept of "chess understanding," since that can
>only be measured by wins and losses. If a computer beats a GM, by definition it
>has better understood the game.
>
>In 10 years, it's clear that no human will be able to contend with commercial
>programs running on off-the-shelf hardware. Since you have a propensity for
>gambling, would you like to make a wager on that?
>
>Will
Perhaps it depends on what one means by "understanding".
If it is enough for the machine to say "This position is worth x, see? i can
show you the 1x10^12 nodes that i looked at to prove it if you like.", then 10
years may be reasonable.
If the machine is required to explain why a position is good or bad to humans in
a way that is meaningful to us ("Nf5 applies terrible pressure to the kingside,
and gf would be refuted tactically by Bxf5! Be8 Rag1+ with an insurmountable
attack"), then 100 years may be reasonable.
Dave
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.