Author: stuart taylor
Date: 01:16:26 11/16/03
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 2003 at 22:09:51, Mike Byrne wrote: >On November 15, 2003 at 22:02:42, stuart taylor wrote: > >>I believe there are supercomputers that are much much faster than was the IBM >>which beat Kasparov with Deeper Blue. >>If so, what are we waiting for? >>S.Taylor > >Even much faster computers will not solve chess. The possibilies of chess games >exceeds the number of atoms in the universe and by the time it could even be >theoretically solved, the Sun would have burned out and there will no humans >living on earth. So one can safely say , chess will never be solved (white to >move and win) by man using computers. > >That would not prevent a computer perhaps being the best in the world. I didn't mean, solve by brute force, nor to absolutely solve, at all. I'm aware of the enormous mathematics. But I'm trying to say that I believe it is now quite cheap to buy a supercomputer which is quite a bit faster than that which Kasparov played with Deeper Blue (by cheap, I mean, that the next generation of supercomputer is probably already old, and could be bought for cheap) as well as there is more knowledge and experience about programming, so things should be significantly stronger, with relatively less effort to produce, than Deeper Blue. If that is done now, we might REALLY be already finding things we didn't know existed in chess. Again, not quite, but maybe a beginning. If only a top program of now, like Shredder 7.04 could be placed into a supercomputer, wouldn't that be great? Or perhaps if such a thing WERE possible, it would only be beneficial if programmed to benefit from the much greater speed? (no failing highs etc.) 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.