Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 15:00:11 03/11/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 11, 2003 at 17:03:04, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Almost perfect chess could be defined as unbeatable. I have no idea what perfect chess is.
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.