Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:03:04 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 15:08:22, Drexel,Michael wrote: >On March 11, 2003 at 14:33:37, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 11, 2003 at 14:10:26, Drexel,Michael wrote: >> >>>On March 11, 2003 at 13:08:01, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On March 11, 2003 at 05:56:08, Peter Berger wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 10, 2003 at 13:44:12, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 10, 2003 at 12:17:36, Peter Berger wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>I did not look at the games but using a computer does not mean to play >>>>>>computer moves. >>>>>> >>>>>>Computers can be used for analysis of positions that is not on the board >>>>>>and I think that giving computer hours to analyze when you sleep may give more >>>>>>information so it is better than nothing. >>>>>> >>>>>>I tend to believe that the top players do everything to help them and it >>>>>>includes using computers. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>>I agree - it seems corresponcence chess is a dying sport. In maybe 10 years due >>>>>to advances in hardware (and software, too) chessprograms will be virtually >>>>>unbeatable. At this time top level correspondence chess will most likely be a >>>>>battle of clever computer operators. >>> >>>Humans with the help of computers (not vice versa) will be clearly stronger than >>>all computerprograms in 10 years too. >>>Do you understand anything about Analysing with a computer? >>>Do you know how deep one can get in a typical middlegame position? >>>Especially if you know from experience which moves the computer oppponents >>>prefer. >>>Do you know what ply 20,30,40 really means? >>>I hope so, but I have doubts when I read your statements. >>>Artificial intelligence or Quantum computers are "necessary" to play (almost for >>>AI) perfect chess. Not in the next 10 years of course. >>> >>>Michael >> >>You may be right if you assume only hardware progress but >>I think that you underestimate the possible progress in software that can >>be done. >> >>Uri > >I believe there will be not much progress in software unless a genius >will appear with revolutionary new ideas. >Someone who is a very good chessprogrammer AND a very strong chessplayer >(IM/GM). >Very unlikely because he wont get money for his research for years. Most programmers do not get money for their program for years so I see no reason why this is unlikely. I do not think that we need a good chess player(IM/GM). > >I cant understand people who believe that computers will play almost perfect >chess in 10 years. This is laughable. > >Michael This is dependent on the defintion of almost. 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.