Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 00:29:27 12/04/98
Go up one level in this thread
Chess is exponential. Same for standard players as for computers. An IM is exponentially weaker than a GM. I think Crafty probably is at IM strength. As to whether programs are GM strength? I think a couple hundred Rebel 10 games against GM's would answer that question. The results against Anand (albeit at time controls *totally* in favor of the computer) show me that computers are making enormous strides. I suspect that the hybrid technology that results from Schroder/Theron will be GM strength, if combined with the right openings database and endgame tables. It is only a matter of time before computers are *clearly* the best players in the world. Why should that be horrible? We already know they can beat our pants off in factoring large numbers or multiplying a million numbers together. I believe that computers will continue to advance exponentially and will have human brainpower in the near future. OTOH, circuits that complex will have failures. Will they be more reliable than the human brain? I doubt it. So there may be some homeostasis. There may also be a breakthrough in the way *humans* play chess. The way that chess [cough] database systems are studied now is a poor joke.
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.