Author: Mark Young
Date: 12:37:34 04/13/02
Go up one level in this thread
On April 13, 2002 at 15:26:07, Roy Eassa wrote: > >That's a slightly different topic. I didn't say "in ten years" but rather >"within ten years." I agree that it's likely that computers will continue to >improve and that someday no human will EVER be able to beat them. I don't know >whether or not that will happen in ten years (I tend to think not, but this is >not the issue here). > >What I predict is this: sometime between today and ten years from today, at >least one strong human chess player will acquire the skills and techniques >necessary to consistently outscore the top chess programs running on PCs. I am, >of course, NOT 100% certain of this prediction, but I believe it to be over 50% >likely. I am 99.9999% sure, GM Kramnik will crush Fritz 7. I think its a safe prediction they way you state it. GM Kramnik will have the program he is playing for months before the match. Any results other then a Crush by GM Kramnik will mean doom for humans quicker then we thought. > > >On April 13, 2002 at 14:55:14, Mark Young wrote: > >>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. >> >>In 2012 if the programmers still have a desire to keep programming new chess >>computers, as there may not be any humans left to beat. I don't think any human >>will be able to win a match against a chess computer. >> >>In truth there is no magic bullet for the human player. Chess is pure tactics >>and as computers get faster, and programs improve. The few holes that programs >>still have will get smaller and smaller. At current less then 100 people in the >>world are stronger then the best programs. In 10 years I think the number will >>be 0. The only better players will be other computer programs. >> >>As of now a success for a GM player using anti-computer tactics is when he locks >>the position for a draw, not a win. Read GM Gluko's comments. >> >>In ten years who will be able to beat a computer at chess, no one. It will be >>like racing a indy car for 500 mile on foot. No chance in hell for the human.
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.