Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 06:31:42 02/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2004 at 08:57:16, Dana Turnmire wrote: >On February 22, 2004 at 08:46:27, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On February 22, 2004 at 08:27:55, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I am not talking about situation when we prove theretical result but about >>>situation when all comp-comp games at 120/40 time control between top programs >>>are drawn. >>> >>>My guess is that we need more than 20 years but less than 50 years to achieve >>>that target. >>> I have to agree with Joel Lautier: http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1489 Even though these machines are able to calculate four million positions in a second and probably ten times more in the future. This impressive number, however, is a but a drop in the ocean when applied to such a hugely complex game as chess. The mathematical possibilites of this ancient game are almost infinite and specialists have claimed that it would take several hundred years before a computer could solve the game entirely. The only way to do so would be to record every single possible position in chess on a gigantic hard disk, thus bringing a final answer to the eternal Shakesperean question facing every master as he sits in front of his chessboard: "In the initial position, is White to play and win or can Black hold the draw in all lines with best defence?" Until that enormous database is available, the best way to play chess is still to understand, rather than just calculate >>>What is your opinion? >> >>I can add that I also mean that by practically solving chess I mean that it will >>be impossible practically for humans to win against chess programs even when >>they get computers to help them. >> >>It does not mean that computers will know to solve every position in chess and >>it is possible that they will not know to evaluate a lot of positions when one >>side is a pawn up but the point is that I believe that when computers search >>deep enough and their evaluation will become better they will not get into the >>situation when they have to go to inferior position when the opponent is a pawn >>up and it is not clear if it is a draw or a win. >> >>Uri > >Maybe that's when FRC or some other variation of chess will emerge supreme. I don't have to wait for that and there are a lot of people like me that are just simply losing interest in standard chess. Ten years ago the average player could NOT beat Fritz on a Pentium 90 MHz, and nowadays we (average players) don't have a choice then to watch our silicon monters play against themselves :-) So why do we have to wait untill Chess is solved, when 99% of the players in the World can NOT beat Fritz8 nor Shredder 8 with a mere 1000 GHz P.C :-) Even watching two programs like a match between Fritz8 versus Shredder 8 is boring me at this moment, one game is won by Fritz 8 the other by Shredder 8 and so on...... If I see a commercial program that includes FRC as an option, I will buy it immediately, just to find a way of finding chess more interesting :-) Jorge
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.