Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 11:49:59 04/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2002 at 13:43:58, Roy Eassa wrote: > >If someone were to handsomely pay 5 strong GMs (they need not be the 5 top GMs, >but younger is better in this case) to spend 3 months (8 hours a day, weekdays >only -- a regular job) with 5 very fast Athlon systems... > >...to come up with skills and techniques to dramatically improve their results >against such programs as Fritz 7b, Chess Tiger 14, Gambit Tiger 2, Hiarcs 8, >Junior 7, and Shredder 6 Paderborn... > >...and the GMs would share ideas and results... > >At the end of the 3 months, how much further would the art of anti-computer >chess have evolved compared to where it is today? > > >Is there NO chance that GMs who would go through an exercise like this could >come out of it able to consistently beat today's top programs on today's fast >PCs? > >Or can you can acknowledge that such GMs MIGHT (not 100% WOULD, not 100% >WOULDN'T) acquire such a skill under such circumstances? > >Today's GMs, with their current set of skills and motivations, are indeed >matched and often outdone by today's best programs running on fast PCs -- there >is ample evidence of that! > >But how can one reasonably conclude that this fact RULES OUT the ability for >smart people to study and develop new skills? > >I did not believe (as some did in the '70s and early '80s) that no computer >would EVER consistently beat some GMs. And I do not believe now that no GM will >EVER consistently beat computers. > >I hereby register my prediction that, within the next 10 years, a human player >(most likely an IM or GM) will be able to consistently beat the top chess >programs running on that day's fast PCs. > >Not EVERY IM/GM will acquire these skills, but I think it's over 50% likely that >AT LEAST ONE will. Roy that's a very interesting opinion you have put forward to this forum. I'm inclined to agree with you. Only *if* the programmers can eliminate the weaknesses that make computers vulnerable to anti-computer play will the computers "Win the Day", otherwise there will always be someone who can exploit these progamme weaknesses regardless of hardware. If the hardware *could* be made unbelieveably fast and the programmes "taught" deep strategy in closed and semi-closed positions and able to evaluate much like a human GM, any position, and always choose the correct plan would the humans be finished for surpremicy (sp?) in chess. Maybe such futuristic computers, could handle vast "chess knowledge" and "understand" what to do in any position, never "frustrated" for a course of action, much like a human GM, but coupled with ruthless accuracy in tactics and like a human, but even better, find the plan and "realize" the intrinsic connection between strategy/positional play and tactics. Then if the human GM is lucky he might obtain a draw at best but could never win. My two cents. Terry
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.