Author: stuart taylor
Date: 18:23:47 10/15/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 22:14:58, Rolf Tueschen wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 21:46:06, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On October 10, 2002 at 20:24:23, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >> >>>On October 09, 2002 at 21:35:21, stuart taylor wrote: >>> >>>>On October 08, 2002 at 13:33:33, Omid David wrote: >>>> >>>>>[D] 8/4k3/8/p1p1p1p1/P1P1P1P1/8/2B1K3/8 w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>If a human can't see the draw here, he is an idiot. If a program can't see the >>>>>draw here, it's no less idiot (at least not an "intelligent agent", but a "dumb >>>>>agent"). And that's the case with all programs at this stage. So we -- the >>>>>computer chess community -- have still a long way to go, to reach our goal of >>>>>proving that computers can play better than humans. >>>> >>>>As soon as computers can search 100 plies in a few seconds, in very simple >>>>positions, they will see this is a draw in a few seconds too. >>> >>>If you see this position at the leaf node of a tree, you want to evaluate it >>>statically as a draw, or it does you no good. If the only way to see a draw in >>>this kind of position is to search 100 plies, it's still program stupidity. :) >> >>True, but that would be its weakest point, and chess might already be solved by >>such a computer. >>S.Taylor > >If it would be solved then there still could be such weak points? > >Rolf Tueschen That might be its weakEST point, and even that will have been solved. S.Taylor
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.