Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 04:46:08 01/08/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 07:23:16, Graham Laight wrote: >On January 08, 2003 at 06:42:38, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On January 07, 2003 at 23:00:40, Russell Reagan wrote: >> >>>On January 07, 2003 at 07:56:28, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>> >>>>Nonsense. computer chess will improve slower and slower. >>> >>>>again you are wrong. computer chess will never demonstrate this. >>> >>>>no computer will EVER be able to prove that. not in 10000 years. a prove would >>>>require a 32-piece tablebase. hope you know what that means. >>> >>>That is quite a bold (and pessimistic) statement. Unfortunately, it's also >>>wrong. It is quite foolish to predict what will be possible in 10,000 years IMO. >> >>Sorry, I was wrong. Chess will be solved in year 2168 :-) >> >>http://user.cs.tu-berlin.de/~kunegis/hack/chess/ > >Wrong calcualtions. They say in that link that in 2002 we can investigate 3 >million positions per minute. I knew that. doesnt matter at all. this is not a serious calculation because Moores law is not realistic (physical reasons). > >If one is only checking for checkmate or draw in the eval, then I'm sure that in >2002 we could have done several billion positions per second on optimal >hardware. > >My prediction: after 2020, no top chess computer will ever lose a game. See my >previous posts in this thread for the reasoning (which is basically that one can >extrapolate that all games will be drawn above 3500 elo, and I posted a link to >a well-researched graph from which this level is extrapolated. In picking 2020, >I'm assuming that computers advance 40 elo per year - a figure I plucked out of >the air - but which is of the right order of magnitude). > this might be true. however this would not come close to a mathematical proof. >-g > >>do you really know what 10^43 means? I dont think so.
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.