Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 21:52:22 11/07/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 07, 2000 at 14:06:12, Albert Silver wrote: >On November 06, 2000 at 15:46:04, Paulo Soares wrote: > >>On November 06, 2000 at 01:55:10, Howard Exner wrote: >> >>>On November 05, 2000 at 20:45:31, Paulo Soares wrote: >>> >>>>On November 05, 2000 at 15:55:16, Howard Exner wrote: >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Here is a cut and paste from ChessWire #57 (Kasparov Chess) >>>>> >>>>>Q: With the increasing power of computers, when do you think an unbeatable >>>>>computer chess program will appear? >>>>> >>>>>A: Shay Bushinsky answers: >>>>>The term unbeatable is a very tough word indeed. I cannot say that a computer >>>>>will ever be unbeatable in any given game in the near future, but I do see a >>>>>time - maybe in about three years from now, when a computer will always prevail >>>>>in an eight game match against the strongest human. >>>>> >>>>>I always take special note when a chess computer authority discloses their >>>>>projections on how chess computers will play in the future. Some follow up >>>>>questions ... >>>>> >>>>>- What sort of hardware would this be? >>>>>- Is the Junior team working on a massive multi-processor project? >>>>>- "eight game match" is chosen. Would the "strongest human" do better in a >>>>>longer match? >>>>>- Are GM's that you know disclosing more information on how Junior and other >>>>>strong programs are playing today? Not looking for exact names and quotes here >>>>>as they might want to keep that discussion in private, just general >>>>>observations. >>>> >>>> >>>>I don't believe that a commercial program can win matchs of 8 games against >>>>SGMs in three years. >>> >>>I feel the same way about a home pc beating the top player in the world in three >>>years at standard 40/2. >>>That's why I was curious for more details. I wondered if Shay was referring to a >>>multi-processor machine or just an affordable home pc. Also I'm guessing that >>>he and Amir are fortunate in having many GM associations. Perhaps they know >>>something we don't? >>> >>>>I consider probable that the program wins the first match, but it will be >>>>difficult to continue winning, because SGMs(or GMs) will already be knowing the >>>>weaknesses of the program. >>>> >>>>Paulo >> >> >>Although it seems madness, I believe that if Deeper Blue continued playing >>matches against SGMs with certain frequency, they would also discover its >>weaknesses. >>The great challenge is not to build a group "computer+software" that wins >>some matches, but a group that stays winning matches with a great frequency. >>In my opinion, it is very difficult to believe that Shay and Amir get that >>in 3 years. >> >>Paulo > >Bof. Computer chess scientists have been reporting the ultimate demise of >humanity in chess for a long long time. No surprise there. It makes for good >headlines, but I wouldn't put much more weight to it than that. You have to more >than double the speed to get an extra ply (and let's also rememember Moore's >Law), and I am not convinced that a couple of plies are going to be a super-GM's >downfall. Of course, the quality of programs improves and has improved over the >years, but again, I have trouble believing 3 years will be the last nails in our >chess coffins. It'll come, but I don't think it will be quite so soon. > > Albert A correct (IMHO) but unpopular stand. :)
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.