Author: Mark Young
Date: 20:15:09 12/08/98
Go up one level in this thread
On December 08, 1998 at 22:44:58, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On December 08, 1998 at 03:58:24, Mark Young wrote: > >>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. > >Personally, I think you're seriously underestimating Deep Blue. Not at all, I just don't underestimate the depth of chess. And I know how all computer programs find chess moves. And 1 Billion position a second is not going to cut it at that time control. Not when each new ply is exponentially larger. No program yet can select the few good lines and just search just them, like a strong human play can do given 1 move per day. The program would be badly out searched by Kasparov. One billion positions a second is not even a drop in the bucket, given that level of play. And yes, I'm >well aware that typically computers perform less well at correspondence time >controls. > >If I were to make a bet, it would be on Kasparov, but I'd know my money would be >at risk. > >Dave Gomboc
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.