Author: Roy Eassa
Date: 10:41:13 01/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
I don't know if it's a pipe dream or not, but it's very interesting stuff and I enjoyed reading it. I'd never heard of much of this, including imperfect-but-compact TBs, before. Very intriguing. Thanks for posting! -Roy. On January 26, 2002 at 21:04:47, David Dory wrote: >On January 26, 2002 at 19:39:29, Roy Eassa wrote: > >>On January 26, 2002 at 18:38:23, David Dory wrote: >> >>>There are further advancements that will be coming out in computer chess in the >>>near future which were impossible until today's strong hardware became reality. >>>When these new features become implemented, they will allow tomorrow's programs >>>to far surpass anything we have today. >> >> >>That's great to hear, but seems to go against what others here have been saying. >> Can you provide more details? > >Naturally, I think the EGTB's will grow, as will our hard drives. Currently our >TB's give us "good as God" moves. In the future, I believe our larger TB's will >give us "very good" moves but not perfect. We trade perfection for compactness, >but still every 10 (or so) piece end game is played well enough to win. > >In the openings, some bright light will write a universal opening creator, which >will work with a scanning function or auxilliary program. Every new nuance that >is played by man or machine, that differs from current theory, will be analyzed >for it's strengths, and automatically included in the chess programs updated >book openings. Additionally, rooms of computers will do nothing but refine the >openings (and middlegame) further through exhaustive testing. Something like >Dann's CAP project. > >It will take some refinements, but this will put an end to all those computer >games where the program came out in a poor position right out of book. I see >this as either a common add-on for programs to use (like Winboard), or a >standard individual feature of all the top programs. > >Sound wild? Sure, but tell me this was something anyone thought likely to happen >just a decade ago. (Just last week a researcher was asking on the news for >people to let him use their excess computer cycles to solve a problem related to >Anthrax vaccine.) > >Taking this powerful, coordinated computer approach, I can't see why games >couldn't be played and analyzed 24/7, by thousands of computers. Taking the >results of this knowledge into a program would eliminate a lot of the search >entirely - it was already done by the network of computers. Your program would >simply access it. > > >I believe programmers will continue to strengthen their programs in the same way >that they have in the past, however, I also believe the largest improvements >will come from these (and other) features. > >A pipe dream? I don't think so. What do you think? > >(Not you, J., I know what you think. You think you want to hide my pipe, right?) > >Dave
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.