Author: stuart taylor
Date: 19:40:57 04/24/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 23, 2003 at 23:59:20, David Dory wrote: >On April 23, 2003 at 21:54:18, stuart taylor wrote: > >>On April 23, 2003 at 17:54:12, stuart taylor wrote: >> >>>About what? >>>Well, if I don't say about what, it could only mean one thing, if you think >>>logically. >>>I'll finish my question a bit later. >>>Big clue....I'm posting this on CCC. >>> So from that you should not only understand the subject, but even exact >>>question IMHO. >>>S.Taylor >> >>Honestly, It seems that no one understands. >>I mean that since this forum is about computer chess, so I'm asking if we can >>really complain about the present level of computer chess, i.e. playing strength >>of the top programs. i.e. even though there may be much more yet to improve >>upon, can we really say as consumers that we simply don't yet have the product >>we have been hoping for? >> >>In other words, Is there something we simply cannot do yet, since the playing >>strength is not strong enough? >> >>Presumably, now that we have Fritz 8008, and Shredder 7.04, and about 3-4 which >>are very close. >> >>Perhaps a year or two ago, we DID have what to complain about, or certainly 3-4 >>years ago. But DID we then? If so, do we now? >> >>Of course, it depends what you want playing strength for. If all you want is >>that a program should give you a hard time, I'm not such a fool as to ask be >>asking if we have reached that stage yet! >> >>(I'm also thinking at present, that there's a limit to how great playing >>"strength" can be, without great wisdom being seen, such as planning etc. So >>when we speak of greater strength, we are thinking of wisdom, as we have almost >>come to limits of what can be done without great chess wisdom, havn't we?) >> >>I have my own thoughts on this question, but It's still not clear to me what >>people generally feel about it, and the specifics. >> >>Could I please hear your opinions and evaluations? >>Thanks >>S.Taylor > >I thought the first post in this thread was a troll. :) > >Yes, I think we have something to complain about, still. There are many >positions where the program has no clue what to do, simply because the answer is >over the search horizon. > >Despite all the hardware improvements, the search still looks at many thousands >(oftentimes 100's of thousands) of positions to find the best move. Meanwhile, >the human might examine 10 to 20 possible moves only, to find the same best >move. > >Anyone looking for "wisdom" in a chess program has long since doubled over in >nausea at the dismal CC results returned by the AI hotshots of the last two >decades. All their high expectations and proclamations turned out to be nothing >but a brain fart. > >The triumph of CC has come only from those working "down and dirty" with broad >searches, and many incremental improvements. The best news is the lower >branching factor several programs have created. > >It's great to see the programs getting better - but that's not to say most of >them are much "smarter". Our EGTB's are moving the "stupid" bar away from the >end game, while more extensive openings are moving said bar further away from >the opening. It makes the programs stronger, but NOT smarter, anywhere they have >to move "on their own", in between. > >We still have to make excuses for the programs "oh well, this is a zugzwang >problem that isn't detected while in null-move, (for faster answer, please >choose your excuse by number next time)". After all these years, we shouldn't >have to make excuses for the program's chosen move. > ><My favorite personal gripe with man/program competition:> >========================================================== >Although EGTB's are fascinating info, I believe they mock the spirit of >man/program competition, and shouldn't be allowed for same. What are EGTB's >except a HUGE cheat sheet, far surpassing the memory of any human? Fine for >program vs. program, chess study, etc., but they should be banned for >man/program competition. <end gripe> >========================================================== >As a consumer, I'm happy as a pig in mud. As a fan of CC, I'm unsatisfied that >we haven't found some very new and insightful way to code up chess "wisdom" very >successfully. Maybe the 64 bit CPU's will help make this possible. > >Dave Could you explain why a 64 bit CPU could help much to make a difference? Isn't 64 bit simply something that is twice the computing speed to what we have now? (I'm quite ignorant I'll admit, but I'm always willing to learn). S.Taylor
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.