Author: Sandro Necchi
Date: 09:25:44 04/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 05, 2002 at 02:13:26, Uri Blass wrote: >On April 05, 2002 at 01:15:25, Sandro Necchi wrote: > >>On April 04, 2002 at 18:03:23, Chessfun wrote: >> >>>On April 04, 2002 at 14:14:51, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>> >>>>On April 01, 2002 at 02:03:15, Chessfun wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 01, 2002 at 01:55:29, Sandro Necchi wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 31, 2002 at 16:46:42, liam hearns wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>thanks in advance! >>>>>> >>>>>>I did not have time enough to test it very much >>>>> >>>>>>, but I got the impression it is about 15 to 20 points stronger than 6.0 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>April fool ?. >>>> >>>>Lack of fantasy? >>> >>> >>>Agh I see replying once to the same post isn't enough. >> >>No. >>> >>> >>>>Of course if a good programmer works on the engine and is able to improve some >>>>parts of the engine the result is a stronger engine. >>> >>> >>>Did he tell you he had improved some parts of the engine? >> >>Yes, but this is not important. I want to see them. >> >>>I'm sure also the case of other engines MCP8 comes to mind, even Nimzo 8, the >>>"good" programmers felt they produced a stronger engine. >> >>MCP8 was the best engine by Marty. The best commercial one as there has been >>another which I own which was never showed to the pubblic. The problem was that >>it would have been better using faster hardware as it was optimized at >>tournament time level (40/2). >> >>> >>> >>>>Isn't the same in USA? >>> >>> >>>No idea, but doubt it. >>> >>> >>>>Sorry I forgot you like more marks ?? >>> >>> >>>No, I simply like data that supports claims. >> >>Well, in 1976 I told many people that in year 2000 computer would have reach GM >>playing level. People where laughing at me and telling me that there was no >>suppurt claims to that and many technical articles were saying things different. > > >I guess that you talked with the wrong people. Maybe, but I was not interested to find someone to tell me I was right. However even the strong players thought the same (IMs and GMs). >I am sure that there were different opinion about what is going to be in 2000 >and there is also different opinion about what is going to be in 2026. Yes of course, but to go from child level to GM level is a big step! Now it is easy to make predictions. > >Do people expect computers to beat every human in go before 2026? >I am sure that you are going to have different opinions about this question. > > >>Of course what I said was based on specific thing that I expected to be done >>later and to more powerful hardware. >>Everybody is able to see things when they are done, only some before. I guess >>you are in the first category and I am in the second, so it would be difficul to >>speak to each other as you will remain on your idea. > >Everybody is able to guess things before they are done. >Seeing things before they are done is impossible. > >You could be wrong in 1976 without the big improvement in the hardware. Well, I am not Nostradamus. I expected less hardware improvements and more software improvements, however the result turned out about the same. > >How could you know the exact improvement in hardware(you could not know but only >guess I felt it. Of course I could not know it. Did you ever feel something before it happens without knowing it? I do sometimes. and I believe that with the hardware of 1990 the commercial programs of >2000 and even the commercial programs of today are not GM strength but only IM >strength). I do not agree. They are GMs level, but I am referring to versions with modified openings book as they should surprise the humans rather than be surprised. To play with std. version is a great advantage you give to them. This would modify the result in a way or another. > >Uri Sandro
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.