Author: Christopher R. Dorr
Date: 07:07:58 01/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 1999 at 20:11:42, KarinsDad wrote: >On January 05, 1999 at 17:56:53, Christopher R. Dorr wrote: > >[snip] > >> >>Perhaps they could catch up in, let's say a year. That's when they *start* to >>become really productive. Figure several months for design, coding, testing...I >>don't think they could start making a major 'Microsoft Impact' on the field for >>2-3 years at the earliest. >> >>And much of the info available on the internet is probably a bit behind the >>times. Team IBM, ChessBase, Ed Schroeder, and the rest probably aren't real keen >>about putting their ideas out for public perusal. >> >>>3) Microsoft has a lot of resources, money, high speed equipment, and talent. >>>Just look at what IBM did with Deep Blue. With Microsoft's money, they could >>>purchase the source for Deep Blue, reverse engineer it, and improve upon it. >>>They could also hire some of the original Deep Thought/Deep Blue engineers and >>>possibly even other engineers from other chess engines. >> >>But that brings us again to the question 'What is the best possible chess >>program that can run on current hardware?' Is it 2600? 2800? 3000? How much >>better will this 'perfect' program be than the best that exists right now? >> >>Unless team MS comes up with some profound new idea never before ideated or >>implemented, then they are stuck with this limit. And I don't believe that this >>'profound new idea' will be discovered by anyone but somebody with years and >>years of chess programming knowledge and experience. > >Chris, > >I think you have hit the nail on the head with one word: implemented. Bob and Ed >have probably come up with sophisticated ideas on how to place more chess >knowledge into their programs, however, the ideas involve a lot of work first to >design, and then to implement. Paradigm shift ideas often are incompatable with >earlier models, so there could be a conflict between re-designing and >re-implementing major sections of code and making minor advancements that work >in the current design model. Small teams would have a difficult time >implementing an advanced complex idea whereas a larger dedicated team with the >right people (thinking that Microsoft wouldn't attempt to hire the best people >"in the field" who could start out running instead of crawling is naive) could >probably create some strong software in a short period of time. > >I believe that such a project would take a lot of resources and dedication, but >the US put a man on the moon in what, 8 years after Kennedy proposed it? > >Microsoft could probably have the strongest engine in the world in 2 years and >if they wanted to, they could have an engine that other engines and superGMs >would have a tough time drawing against in 5 years. The current crop of chess >programs are still advancing faster then the superGMs (who have basically >peaked). > >I think a more interesting opinion question is: "Do you think that a 3000 rated >chess program available to the general public (including GMs) will drastically >change the way in which GMs approach the game of chess?" > >Cheers, > >KarinsDad Now this is a quite interesting question! One which may well be of practical value within the next few years. What would a 3000 rated program do to GM's, and how would it change their approach to chess? I was actually thinking about this yesterday. I was watching a fantastic speed game between Ban and Crafty on ICC. One onf the most fascinating games I have ever seen (human or computer). Crafty had 2 knights and a pawn vs. Ban's 2 bishops. For most of the game, Crafty was being amazingly creative in corralling the bishops. Using techniques that only a profoundly strong computer could manage. Now I'm a 2150, and a pretty experienced player, and I suddenly realized that I simply couldn't understand much of what was going on. I simply wasn't good enough. maybe with several hours and the help of Crafty, I could, but in real time, I simply was left to appreciate the beauty of the game without really understanding how and why things were happening. What happens when some program makes Shirov and Kasparov feel like I did yesterday? It's not far-fetched. I'm rated higher than about 99% of the tournament players in the country, and I'm already baffled by the computers sometimes. I've seen speed games where good GM's totally lose understanding of a position against Crafty. It's very impressive to watch. As an opponent, I've virtually given up on being competitive with the top programs on my M2 266. Crafty, CM6K, Fritz5...they all hammer me mercilessly. My record against Fritz5 on this machine is something in the neighborhood of 1 win, 20 draws, and about 125 losses. Since I can't play against it full strength, I have focused more on letting it be my teacher. Watching it play out positions where I had difficulty in choosing a move. I'm guessing that within a few years, it's going to be this way for the average GM. It is already this way for the average master. But a fun thing is that even the GM's won't understand the games that are going on. Generally, I can understand (in real time) games by human players up to 400 or 500 points better than I am. I'm guessing that's fairly average. I'd like to find out if weaker GM's watchin Crafty have similar difficulties understanding what's going on. Very interesting topic! Chris Dorr
This page took 0.01 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.