Author: leonid
Date: 09:44:38 11/19/00
Go up one level in this thread
On November 19, 2000 at 01:28:42, Uri Blass wrote: >On November 18, 2000 at 17:08:01, leonid wrote: > >>On November 18, 2000 at 15:48:12, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >> >>>On November 18, 2000 at 13:39:39, Jorge Pichard wrote: >>> >>>>Does anybody know which programs use which method and which aproach is yielding >>>>a better result? >>> >>>All of todays chess programs use various forms of selective search. Our >>>processors could not even begin to do full-width and complete 14 ply searches. >>>Brute force machines would need processors and memory millions of times as much >>>as even the Pentium IV 1.5 Ghz machines that just arrived today. >> >> >>As far as I know heavy position could be taken by brute force in few seconds on >>1.5 Ghz only 8 plys deep. Heavy position - average 35 nodes in each ply. >>8 ply search is too little. At least, actual computer must be able to reach some >>12 plys to make brute force search practical. We are still not there. > >I believe that brute force is going to lose against selctive search of tiger and >it is not important if the number of plies of the brute force program is 8 or >12. > >You can do experiment by giving your brute force program to search 12 plies and >giving the selective search programs to search for the same time. > >12 plies may take some hours for the brute force program so the game will be >correspondence time control game. So, probably you want to say the same thing as me, brute force search is too slow right now. But one thing is clear, if one program will search 12 plys by brute force and the next by selective, selective have better chance to lose. And if both programs do this search in time of 1 second? Brute force just in one second and selective in a split of one second? What is the difference? But for now we a not there. >> >>>Full width or "brute force" is not a smart way to play chess. Kramnik and >>>Kasparov are not brute force players. >> >>Brute force is not affordable way of playing. This is only reason why it look >>like very poor. This impression could become different only in some 30 years >>from now. We are still playing with computers of Stone Age. > >I do not expect brute force to become the right way in the future. >Brute force can solve the game but my guess is that being 1000 times faster or >100000 times faster is not enough for getting better results relative to >selective search. Disagree, Uri! Brute force search will be good enough not when it will be better that selective search (or any other kind of search) but when it will start beating all human around. And when we forget about openings and the end of the game (there data will be needed) human can see only up to the fixed depth in the game at limited time. Once computer will start seeing over this limit, all other extra strength will be added for sheer vanity. Then brute force search will become real. Will be not surprised to know that many complications of chess programming became already obsolete because of growing computer strength. Could be that brute force program is only distant point in this same process that already started. Leonid >Uri
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.