Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 15:13:57 01/05/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 1999 at 16:57:40, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 05, 1999 at 15:19:09, Peter Kappler wrote: >[snip] >>"Much stronger" is pretty vague. This could mean 50 ELO points or 200 ELO >>points, depending on your point of view. Can you be more specific in your >>answer? >Perhaps orders of magnitude stronger. Argh! I had just finished complaining that Eugene's "much stronger" comment was too vague, and I'm afraid this isn't much better. I'm looking for quantitative estimates, specifically in terms of ELO ratings. Please if anybody else has an opinion, and wants to respond, at least give a rating range as part of your answer. Thanks. > I worked at Microsoft for about 10 years >and I can tell you that they have a large number of very talented people who >work there. You may imagine some giant pool of chowderheads, No, I don't imagine that at all. I know some Microsoft people too, and they are all very bright. But I am of the opinion that computer chess is now in the realm of diminishing returns. The current commercial programs already search so deep that I think even a 50-100 point improvement in playing strength would be a tremendous accomplishment. I suspect that Microsoft could build something that would reach that "50-100 point stronger" point if they devoted enough resources. Again, keep in mind that I'm talking about a pure software implementation, and not a mixed hardware/software project like IBM's Deep Blue. --Peter
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.