Author: Peter Berger
Date: 17:03:15 03/23/03
Go up one level in this thread
On March 23, 2003 at 12:06:23, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 23, 2003 at 11:51:52, Peter Berger wrote: > >>On March 23, 2003 at 04:17:22, Frank Phillips wrote: >> >>>On March 23, 2003 at 02:38:31, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On March 22, 2003 at 23:15:19, Lyn Harper wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 13:17:48, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On March 22, 2003 at 13:16:46, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>><snipped> >>>>>>>The only reason to make them weaker relative to humans is simply to change the >>>>>>>rules of the game. >>>>>> >>>>>>Should be the only way to nake them... >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>> >>>>I see that I made a mistake in my correction (make and not nake) >>>> >>>>> >>>>> But is'nt this just inventing ways to delay the inevitable? The programs are >>>>>just getting stronger while the humans are'nt. Accept it. >>>> >>>>If you change the rules humans will be relatively stronger and after the delay >>>>you can change the rules again. >>>> >>>>I think that humans also can learn to be stronger in normal chess thanks to >>>>computers. >>>> >>>>I agree that in every static game computers are going to win after enough time >>>>and this is exactly the reason to change the rules. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>So we have a game the rules of which are that humans must be able to >>>win....bizarre. >>> >>> >>>Frank >> >>Why is that bizarre? It's just a little early now but some day some kind of >>rules will be needed to make man-machine matches interesting as the silicon will >>be too strong for equal competition. >> >>Obviously there are two ways this can be done: >> >>a.) limitting the computer power and ressources >> >>I like this approach most. Will there be a day when a program on a current >>Pocket PC or Palm can compete with human top players? That's a very long way to >>go still. >> >>b.) adapting the rules >> >>Maybe the easy and old approach of playing with uneven material is nicest here. >>That's a little similar to Go. How long until a program can win against top >>players with a knight less? > >Never > >I believe that even god is going to lose against the top humans >and even against 2600 GM's with a knight odd. > >Uri I think you underestimate God - he would have a few additional advantages, for example he could read his opponents' minds. Seriously - I don't think knight's odds is something that can't be overcome with extremely deep searches at some time. Or if it is, make it one or two pawns instead. This year Mr Ingo Althoefer did a few experiments playing chessprogrammers and a few strong players in odds games with the help of an engine. He seemed to do OK. Maybe like 2100 level. That's were chessengines were 25 years ago, too. I don't see the principle difference. Let's assume we played a corresponcence game and I gave you knights odds but earned the right to use a chessengine where you could only use your own mind. I would be pretty confident to win or at least I bet you would have a very hard time. That chessengines currently are not that great at odds games is due to the fact that they are not programmed to play them well. I don't see why it should not be possible to have an engine/machine beating a top level GM with knights odds in 25 years. Peter
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.