Author: Christophe Theron
Date: 09:41:50 02/26/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 26, 2001 at 04:44:45, José Carlos wrote:
>On February 25, 2001 at 12:33:45, Christophe Theron wrote:
>
>[snip]
>
>>You can go even further and imagine what could happen if programs are given an
>>"almost" infinite time. They do not need high chess knowledge anymore. They just
>>need to know the basic rules and to be able to identify a checkmate when it
>>happens, because given enough time you can see all the forced lines from the
>>beginning to the end of the game. Then would you say that a program with almost
>>no chess knowledge is as good as one with a lot of knowledge just because, given
>>enough time, they are almost equal?
>>
>>Certainly not.
>
> Ok, now imagine the opposite situation: a program with an "almost perfect"
>evaluation, that takes a lot of days to compute for each postion.
> With "really fast" hardware, you can make the program generate all the initial
>moves, evaluate them and say "e4. mate in 67".
> Would you say that this program (unable to evaluate even a position under
>normal tournament conditions) is a bad one?
>
> Nonsense, both your and my statement.
I don't want to argue about this. My point is just that at very long time
controls or with very fast processors, the difference between a very good
program with lots of chess knowledge and a chess program with less knowledge is
smaller and smaller.
So if a program needs more time or more processor speed, my opinion about it is
that it is an inferior program.
Christophe
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.