Author: Walter Koroljow
Date: 17:15:22 01/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2000 at 00:03:59, Michael Neish wrote: >On January 11, 2000 at 21:46:38, Roger wrote: > >>Excerpt from the interview: >> >>"For instance, if you were to remove the database, you can >>have a computer ten times faster than it is today. Ten >>times faster than Deep Blue, easily. If it couldn't >>consult its opening book, my result would improve >>immediately. I think most of the top twenty, thirty >>players could beat Beep Blue if it wasn't allowed to >>consult an opening database. Or, even the opening >>database is restricted to a certain size. What happens >>is, their opening database is almost 400-500 MBs of >>information. It has access to all the games that are >>played but we have to remember all that. Or, if I am >>allowed to have a computer with me, okay, I can't check >>my thoughts but I can see what was played at any given >>time. My result would then go up." > >And where do you draw the line anyway? It's a shady area I >think. While Anand can't remember every single game played >by every GM and IM in the last century, I suspect he has >his own private little database in his brain concerning >every game he's played and quite a few that others have >played, not to mention his opening repertoire. Is it okay >to deprive a computer of this knowledge and allow the human >to use it? And if you choose to deprive a computer of its >database, next thing you know someone might suggest that >hash tables are unfair since they are a temporary database >of thousands of positions of which the computer will have >perfect memory. But a human doesn't search and research >lines either: during a game she or he remembers lines which >are good and bad. > >Endgame databases are probably another issue. > >And while we're at it, search routines are unfair too, >since a computer is making and retracting moves in order >to look ahead. Humans aren't allowed to move pieces >are they? > >And on and on ...... > >It'll be interesting to see what happens when computers >finally start to defeat GMs at tournament time controls >on a regular basis. Any estimates on how long this will >take? > >Mike. Yes, it is a gray area. However, we could eliminate the database part of it by playing Fischer's random chess. Of course then the humans would not get the advantage they presently have of playing "known" (i.e., from known openings) middlegames. GMs presently understand these and the machines do not. Cheers, Walter
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.