Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:30:03 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 19:32:08, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 18:45:47, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 17:49:17, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 17:39:55, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 13:31:16, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 10:54:26, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 02:33:38, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>In my (private) endgame testsuite Fruit scored better than some programs >>>>>>>with tablebase support (e.g. Junior8 and Crafty). >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>>Quite stunning - it seems, >>>>>>>that excellent search depth compensates TBs! >>>>> >>>>> Your opinion.. Provide evidence! >>>>> >>>>> And my suite has some 5/6 piece >>>>>>>positions were TB access is definitely advantage. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Jouni >>>>>> >>>>>>IMO the 5-piece tablebases are just not that interesting and really not worth >>>>>>that much in terms of elo. >>>>> >>>>>What are the Current ELO Ratings for Top Programs, including yours? >>>>> >>>>>THey represents exact play, and all positions possible are immediatly shown. >>>>>What more can you expect? >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> A little endgame knowledge can cover most of the >>>>>>positions and be a lot faster too. >>>>> >>>>>Absolute NONSENSE! >>>> >>>>Not nonsense. >>>> >>>>In most of the position of 5 pieces or less than it computers can find the right >>>>move with no tablebases. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>> >>>Nonsense Uri! >>>They "May" find it... Ha Ha.. in how long! >>>Stop the Crap! >> >>Suppose that a tablebase takes 2 days to create today. >>Next year it will take one day to create it. >>The following year, it will take 12 hours. >>Year 3: 6 hours >>Year 4: 3 hours >>Year 5: 90 minutes >>Year 6: 45 minutes >>Year 7: 22.5 minutes >>Year 8: 11.25 minutes >>Year 9: 5.625 minutes >>Year 10: 2.8125 minutes >>Year 11: 1.40625 minutes >>Year 12: 42.1875 seconds >>Year 13: 21.09375 seconds >>Year 14: 10.546875 seconds >>Year 15: 5.2734375 seconds >>Year 16: 2.63671875 seconds >>Year 17: 1.318359375 seconds >>Year 18: 0.6591796875 of a second >>Year 19: 0.32958984375 of a second >>Year 20: 0.164794921875 of a second. >> >>What that means is that perfect information will be generated in a fraction of a >>second, if that is what is desired. >> >>This is a conservative estimate, since compute power seems to be growing >>superexponentially, rather than just exponentially. > >any proof for the last point? Measurements over the last couple hundred years. Read this thing: http://www.kurzweilai.net/articles/art0134.html?printable=1 >I see no way to know. > >I think that there is some maximal ability that you cannot do better than it >so common sense tells me that the progress must be stopped somewhere. I doubt it very much. >After all you cannot move faster than the light. There is already a known mechanism to do it, and also a time machine [which amounst to the same thing]. It will take all the energy of the sun, but that does not make it impossible. It is also possible to communicate instantly fast (e.g. I could send a message to the far side of the universe in zero time using paired particles). Supposing that light speed was a barrier -- why not have 15 trillion things working in parallel at light speed? For every limit, there is a can opener to tear the top off. We just have not found them all yet. >I do not know when the advance in the speed of computers will be stopped but it >must be stopped sometime so I cannot believe that twice faster every year for >the next 20 years is conservative estimate. I think it will go on forever. Probably, when they invented the Hollerith machine, they thought they had just about reached the peak of possible computation engines. >Uri
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.