Author: Albert Silver
Date: 04:11:05 01/28/02
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2002 at 06:58:25, Uri Blass wrote:
>On January 28, 2002 at 06:42:25, Albert Silver wrote:
>
>>On January 28, 2002 at 06:33:26, Amir Ban wrote:
>>
>>>On January 28, 2002 at 06:12:53, Ed Schröder wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Will TACTIC's eventually REFUTE! Positional play?
>>>>
>>>>In the end yes.
>>>>
>>>>It is my (new) opinion that the nature of chess is just search.
>>>>
>>>>Elo progress of (professional) chess programs...
>>>>
>>>>1990 - elo 2000 (average depth 6-8) (TC 40/2h)
>>>>1995 - elo 2300 (average depth 8-10)
>>>>2000 - elo 2500 (average depth 11-13)
>>>>2002 - elo 2600 (average depth 12-14)
>>>>
>>>
>>>This begs the question, because the programs are newer and play positionally
>>>different. Will a 1990/1995 program perform 2600+ on today's hardware ?
>>>Doubtful.
>>>
>>>
>>>>No way to stop it.
>>>>
>>>>No suprise Kasparov lost against Deep Blue.
>>>
>>>It was a surprise because he is clearly better.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>The sad future: it will be in the headlines when a grandmaster occasionally will
>>>>win from a computer.
>>>>
>>>
>>>If this will happen due to positionally outplaying will you also consider it sad
>>>?
>>>
>>>Amir
>>
>>I don't think he meant it would be sad they won, but that this would be
>>considered news. In any case, I'm afraid I agree with him on the nature of
>>chess. I think that positional play is just extremely deep and refined tactical
>>play. Since we approach them differently, we regard them as different, but that
>>is still how I regard them. Notice how already some elements of knowledge that
>>were necessary in older programs are removed as the search makes up for it.
>
>I do not believe in it.
>
>If it is the case palm tiger should have knowledge that the default tiger does
>not have but it is not the case because I remember from christophe's posts that
>palm tiger is the same engine that he is using for tournaments except more hash
>tables book and better hardware.
>
>Palm tiger is better than the old programs on similiar hardware and it means
>that exactly the same knowledge that is good for today programs can be also good
>for old programs.
>
>Uri
I was speaking about the reverse: knowledge that was necessary or useful in
older programs with much more limited hardware but that is not necessary or
useful today.
Albert
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.