Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:28:24 07/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On July 26, 2000 at 13:18:26, Jonathan Lee wrote: >GMs will find more weaknesses through pattern recognition. >At the same time the programmers (software) will find a way to fix them. >In addition, hardware speed will probably increase giving GMs more on "their >tippy toes". >The dynamics of the ratings are rather complex. >The question becomes when the software goes from loss to draw, and then draw to >win. You have pointed out the lone weakness in the analysis -- that the events are independent. I think clearly they are not. The blockade idea was pretty clearly mimicked, and a super GM is very unlikely to throw a stonewall at another super GM so it was clearly an anticomputer strategy. Of course, the computer programs also learn. Therefore, both pieces of the puzzle are moving targets. On the other hand, there is not a lot of evidence that this type of defence against computers is going to be effective or that it can't be countered. It may also turn out that the computers learn better than the GM's do (I consider this unlikely, but I don't know for sure). Time will tell. All in all, though, I think we really must admit that at least for current performances, the ~2500 figure is certainly still reasonable.
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.