Author: Knut Bjørnar Wålberg
Date: 13:06:27 10/27/02
Go up one level in this thread
>I am curious what this forum thinks with regards to the following: > >1. How strong is strong enough for Computer Chess? 3000 ELO, 3200 ELO, >stronger? > That would depend on the strengths/weaknesses of the programs. Somewhere I've seen the claim that the best computer chess programs play ~3000 ELO in open, tactical positions, but only ~2400 at closed, strategic positions, giving them an overall rating around 2700. I don't know if this is true, I'm much too weak in chess to say for sure. However, if it is true, then it's not enough to say that we want a 3000 ELO chess program, if that means it will be tactically at 3500, but positionally at 2500. >2. Do we really need more speed (faster HW, no doubt this makes program x >stronger) or is sw improvements (on a 3Ghz machine) enough to make most people >here happy? Which do you want to pay for HW, SW or both? > >For me, 400 ELO above the strongest GM would be plenty. HW vs SW makes no >difference to me, I will buy SW and HW upgrades for a while to come, but the HW >upgrades are harder and harder for me to justify, the SW is easier for me to >swollow. :) I think the greatest challenge is in SW. The chess sites I've visited, seem to have the following view on analysis: A computer can be a great aid, but there's no substitution for a GM if you really want understand chess. I guess that's because there's a lot of things chess programs don't understand at the moment. So the point where it's *enough*, at least for any practical use, is when chess programs are at least as good as the best super-GMs in all aspects of the game, not just tactics. Which actually brings up a question: Is it possible to make a computer program that is (much) better strategically than a human? I'm wondering because to me it seems like: strategic understanding means grasping a lot of concepts => better players know more concepts and how to utilize them => the best players know and use almost all the concepts => a strategic super-computer should know even more but how can you implement a piece of knowledge that no human is aware of? I guess with *real* AI a computer could bring completely new knowledge to chess. But back to SW/HW. Obviously, if a lot more chess knowledge into a program, you'd probably want faster HW as well, so you can still keep up the ply depth. Knut Bjørnar Wålberg
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.