Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 06:58:01 02/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2004 at 09:31:42, Jorge Pichard wrote: >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, This is not the only way. Connect-4 has been solved by a non brute-force way. Computers may take hundred of years to solve chess, but human brain may solve it even tomorrow (perhaps with the help of a computer like connect-4)! >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?" Why don't you add: "or black can win every time"? The game of Gomoku 15x15 has a perfect symmetry like chess and in fact white has a tempo more as it plays first like chess again, but in Gomoku 15x15 black has a big advantage and i think it's a black wins game. 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.