Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:24:11 07/22/03
Go up one level in this thread
On July 22, 2003 at 10:02:28, Matthew Hull wrote: >On July 22, 2003 at 00:08:51, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On July 22, 2003 at 00:01:07, Matthew Hull wrote: >> >>>On July 21, 2003 at 23:29:11, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On July 21, 2003 at 23:14:52, Derek Paquette wrote: >>>> >>>>>Ok here is a hypothetical situation for you all. >>>>>I love debating chess, and so here is something to debate. >>>>> >>>>>There was talk a few years ago of a program actually being able to play for the >>>>>world championship. While this isn't happening, let us pretend for the sake of >>>>>this debate that it is true. >>>>> >>>>>How much money would it take to build a machine and the salary of programmers to >>>>>win a world championship match outright, >>>>>so a point where it is embarasing for the Grandmasters >>>>> >>>>>no draws, all wins, no loses >>>>>Is this possible right now? How much money would it cost >>>> >>>>Way, way more than the reward in monetary terms. >>>> >>>>>The saying is, "money can't buy everything" >>>>>only most things, is this possible? >>>>> >>>>>In my own opinion yes. >>>>>No investment by any one or two people could possibly afford this, >>>>>However if a corporation were to invest millions, they could topple the best in >>>>>the world, thoroughly, >>>>> >>>>>my own opinion of course >>>> >>>>Possible? Maybe. Hsu/Campbell could shrink and improve the chips by a couple >>>>orders of magnitude. They could use 1 million of them instead of 480. They >>>>could use a cluster of top of the line RS/6000 machines and improve/debug the >>>>programs and hardware. >>>> >>>>Probably a cost of 100 million dollars. >>>> >>>>There is absolutely no way that's going to happen. >>>> >>>>Of course, 20 years from now your desktop PC will be able to do the same thing. >>>>So why not just wait a bit. >>> >>> >>>Don't need to spend all that money! Not even one cent more. >>> >>>I'd bet any of the top programs could win a championship on current hardware, >>>simply because of the human fatigue factor. The programs we have now would >>>wear-down any of the top players in a 12 game match, no problem. >> >>Without a single draw for the best player in the world? >> >>I don't think you read the OP's question. > > >You're right. They could not do it without draws or losses. But I'd bet even >crafty on current hardware could win a 12+ game match against any human, just by >fatigue factor alone. > >Matt I believe that Smirin is going to beat Crafty in a 12 game match. The fatigue factor is only a problem for kasparov and kramnik and the conclusion should be that sponsors should not pay them money for matches against computers. I do not believe that humans who play a match against another player become weaker in the last games if they have to play 12 games when they have 48 hours between every 2 games. There were a lot of matches between humans of more than 12 games. Karpov was leading 5-0 against kasparov and could not win the match because of the fatique factor but it did not happen after less than 12 games but after more than 24 games. I do not believe all these stories about the fatique factor. Both matches of kramnik and kasparov were show matches and these humans should not get money by another match with computers. For some reason the sponsors do not want humans to do their best,otherwise they can decide not to support humans who do not win like kasparov and support humans who won(see smirin) or even humans who did not play matches against machines in the last years in case that they win a match. 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.