Author: Uri Blass
Date: 18:14:00 07/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2002 at 17:36:11, Omid David wrote: >On July 05, 2002 at 11:37:30, Uri Blass wrote: > >>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 > >If as you pointed out the programs reach the depth of 50 plies, I believe most >of the games will end in a draw. > >But I don't see alpha-beta based programs reach even the depth of 20 plies in >next 50 years!!! No matter how fast the hardware will be, it won't match the >exponential explosion of alpha-beta trees. I also expect depth that is smaller than 50 in 50 years(but more than 20) but I also expect better evaluation function so programs will need less plies to get the same target of always drawing. Uri
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.