Author: leonid
Date: 01:33:12 08/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On August 15, 2001 at 02:06:23, Gregor Overney wrote: >Computer chess is not at all boring. There are still many challenges and >problems to solve, such as > >1) Endgame study. A computer can handle six-fold tablebases. Is this the limit? >New methods might be developed to handle seven- and eight-fold tablebases. And on what program all those seven men, or whatever it can be, mate is calculated? I do ask this since I found that usually professional chess programs are not very efficent in solving mate positions. It could be that bigger tablebases are so slow in appearance only because they use slow thinking logic. To see about what I speak, you can try few positions on dedicated mate solver and some well known chess program. Difference will be visible. Leonid. >2) Grand-Master level for a 40/2 20/1. The average program for a dual Pentium IV >Xeon system is barely reaching this level. But this might change in the close >future. > >3) Machine vs. Machine challanges. Who can build the fastest and best chess >playing system? Computer chess programs belong to the oldest programs on >electronic computers (such as IBM's 704). I think chess programs will continue >to belong to the first programs that get developed for a new system architecture >to benchmark its performance. How about Chess on a quantum computer in 2050? > >4) Knowledge gained by examining very deep searches. When computing Chess, very >deep searches are performed using sophisticated evaluation functions. All this >technology can be used for other topics, such as DNA sequencing, speaker >independent, large vocabulary speech recognition, Go (an other game that >computers do not handle at all on the master level), AI, .............. > > >Gregor
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.