Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:53:57 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 13:12:59, William H Rogers wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 12:00:12, Edward Seid wrote: > >>Western Chess >>Shogi >>Go >>Xiangqi (Chinese Chess) >>Othello > >Based upon the strength of the programs written for the above games I can only >comment about three of them. Go, in my opinion and the opinion of many others is >the most complecated, followed by chess. Othello, on the other hand depends on >the roll of the dice which includes 'chance' and there for should not be compare >to the others. There are both Othello and Checkers programs that have defeated >the worlds champions many different times, so I would conclude that they have >been solved. >Chess on the other hand with the way the programmers are working today might not >really be solved, but for all pratical purposes will be using the technics that >are in vogue today, ie. unlimited opening books, unlimited end game books, might >be consider to be solved in just a few more years. >I still recall a tournement held in 2000 where one program defeated another >without ever leaving its opening book. I do not consider that a chess thinking >machine or program, just a look-up program that could not solve the problem >without is extensive books. >Many people have argued about this topic for years now but I have to ask "what >is considered an opening play, the first 5, 10, or 15 moves", "Where does >mid-game start", and "when does end game play start"? Table bases for the end >games where there are only 5 or less pieces left on the board sounds reasonable, >but I think that if anyone ever programs to find the best endgame without table >bases then it will be a better program. >I would like to see a world wide tournement held which limits the pre programmed >openings to say 10 moves, period and then let the programs proceed based upon >their own 'real' strenght. >The people who oppose my operating theory the most at this time are the ones who >have already incorporated the above mentioned ideas into their programs. >Only time will tell if and when the games are really solved depending upon what >king of programming is allowed. >Bill I think that you overestimate the influence of books. The fact that there was a game when one program defeated the other without leaving book means nothing. It is possible to do it in every game if you know the book of the opponent. If you do not know the opponent then I expect you not to be able to do it. I also believe that your wish is not practical because you cannot force programs to use no book because they can use book without external files. It is more realistic to do a tournament in shuffle chess and I expect the results in shuffle chess to be similiar to the result in regular chess. I will be surprised if some program that is more than 100 elo weaker than the top programs is going to be number 1 in shuffle chess. 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.