Author: Mark Young
Date: 00:58:24 12/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1998 at 03:05:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 07, 1998 at 22:01:35, John Wentworth wrote: > >>What is the largest # of moves in a single game between two chess engines that >>people have witnessed. It would be interesting to hear of some long games and >>maybe a PGN of them. >> Seems like the quicker the time frame the more moves will be made. I'am >>guessing because of mistakes made. I just finished watching this long game which >>was because of a lot of inaccurate play I'am sure. I was glad it blitz and not >>40/2! >At 40/2 there are a lot fewer crappy games. The faster the time control, the >worse the game -- (assuming the same opponents, in general). >I hate lightning chess. I don't like blitz chess. I like the slowest time >controls best of all (up to a point -- I can't wait ten years for a game to >complete). > >I would like to see Deep Blue verses Kasparov at one day per move. At that >scale, Deep Blue would see so far ahead, it would start to see things >strategically. 256 million positions per second times 86,400 seconds would be >2.2e13 positions examined. Now that would be an awesome game. It would be a trashing of Deep Blue. I would bet the farm on Kasparov. Even at 1 billion position a second Deep Blue will only see a very few plys past what it could see at 3 min a move. Where a strong human player will find the correct line of play, and not be hit with the tactics they could not work out at 3 min a move. No chance for any computer at that time control IMO. And would show how much more improvment there is to go in computer chess. > >To my way of thinking, quality of chess is a product of ability of the opponents >multiplied by the time taken per move. > >By the time you get to 40/2, with excellent players the chess will be excellent. >[snip]
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.