Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:37:30 07/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2002 at 11:02:43, Sune Fischer wrote: >On July 05, 2002 at 10:54:06, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 05, 2002 at 10:51:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >> >>>On July 05, 2002 at 06:59:51, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On July 05, 2002 at 05:59:30, stuart taylor wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 04, 2002 at 21:47:11, Omid David wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>Computers are like a blind person, they can do very well in the radius of their >>>>>>stick, but can't see farther. >>>>> >>>>>Isn't that radius almost complete now? How much is left? >>>>>S.Taylor >>>> >>>>A lot is left. >>>>The radius of their stick is clearly less than a half of >>>>the radius that is needed. >>> >>>Define "needed". >>>Kicking GM butts is not enough? :) >> >>Until the radius is clear to the end of the game tree, there will always be room >>for improvement. If not against humans, then against other programs. > >Yes, but since Uri said "half" I assumed he didn't mean distance to solve the >game, in that case we need more than 30 times the depth. The longest known mate >is 260 something IIRC, and that is a simple 6 man position. > >-S. I said less than a half. I did not say half. I thought about solving the game but I do not know how much is needed to practically solve the game. It is possible that some program can solve practically the game by searching to depth of 50 plies. I do not know how much is needed but I believe that we do not need to search to the end of the game and the number of plies that is needed is a function of the quality of the evaluation. I believe that it is easier to solve chess than to prove that the game is solved. I believe that it is possible that we will see in 50 years that all the comp-comp games between top programs are drawn without proving that chess is a draw. Uri
This page took 0.03 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.