Author: chandler yergin
Date: 00:30:58 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 19:09:40, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 18:57:24, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 18:46:12, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 18:21:14, Uri Blass wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 18:00:30, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 17:43:45, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 17:26:40, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 13:31:16, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>>[snip] >>>>>>>>>This is why I keep pestering Skinner to let me download some of them :) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>And when the 7-man tables are finished? (2010 or so :)) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Not in your lifetime! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>All the essential files will be done before long. >>>>>>>KQQQQQk is not very interesing, for instance. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Computers will become >>>>>>>>>invincible in the ending, as they win all "simple" endings like KQPPKQP with >>>>>>>>>ease. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>anthony >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not until you get the BUGS out of the Programs. >>>>>>>>Humans still Rule; NOT Silicon Chips! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Humans also have flaws in their analysis. Eventually, computers will win every >>>>>>>game, because humans advance slowly and compute power advances exponentially. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>It is simply inevitable >>>>>> >>>>>>It is not so clear. >>>>>> >>>>>>If the game is complicated enough computers will eventually win every game but >>>>>>if the game is simple enough humans may play perfect at least in part of the >>>>>>games and get draws. >>>>>> >>>>>>It is not clear that chess is complicated enough so humans cannot avoid drawing >>>>>>against computers. >>>>> >>>>>YES! They can Draw! >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>A deterministic machine will be unable to win every game because human who want >>>>>>to draw it will need only to learn the moves of game of that machine against >>>>>>itself and use them. >>>>> >>>>>What do you call a 'deterministic' machine? >>>> >>>>deterministic machine is machine that always play the same move from the same >>>>position. >>>> >>>>>Computers "Store & Retrieve Information. They have NO intelligence! >>>>>I'm glad you realize that! >>>> >>>>Computers need no intelligence to be not deterministic. >>>> >>>>Changing the weight of the evaluations by some small random number can cause >>>>them to choose different move. >>>> >>>>> >>>>>Look at the EPD Test Positions.. How many Programs Fail to Solve them? >>>>>Hmmmm? >>>> >>>>Computers get bettter and better and I do not claim that it is impossible that >>>>in the future they will solve every chess problem. >>> >>>I DO! >>> >>>> >>>>probably you will not live to see it but it is possible that younger people than >>>>you may see it. >>> >>>Nonsense! >>>> >>>>>How many make D-U-M-B mistakes...? >>>>>Hmmmm? >>>>>Computers will NEVER Solve Chess! >>>>>Period! >>>> >>>>Not in the near future but I cannot be sure of never. >>> >>>I can! >>> >>>> >>>>I cannot be sure that it is impossible that humans will invent some algorithm to >>>>detect illogical moves and by pruning them will solve chess. >>> >>>You fail to grasp the Obvious! >>> >>>> >>>>It is also possible that if computers search deep enough they will practically >>>>solve chess and inspite of no proof that they solve chess nobody will be able to >>>>beat them even with take back. >>> >>>Nonsense! >>>Your enamoration for a man-made machine is tooo much! >>>I don't buy it! >>>There is not a Database large enough or a Program 'smart enough, or the time >>>long enough to 'solve' what is for all practical purposes 'infinite' >>>possibilities. Your Hard Drive can be spinning until the Universe is a Cold Dark >>>Place.. and NOT SOLVE CHESS! >>>Period! >>> >>>If you don't like to consider Cold.. then until "HELL FREEZES OVER" >>> >>> >>> You spout Nonsense! >> >>SQRT(10^43) nodes is a lot less than infinite, and that is how many nodes are >>needed to solve chess. Or [more simply] to make the perfect move given any >>position. Chess will be solved in the lifetime of the readers of this forum. >>It is simply unquestionable to those with understanding of simple mathematics. > >I have no proof that sqrt(10^43) is enough. > >It may be enough but may be not enough and it is probably not enough with the >techniques that are used today. > >10^43 may be the number of possible positions in chess but it does not mean that >sqrt(10^43) is enough for the same reason that I do not know of a way to solve >KRB vs KR position with only sqrt(64^5) nodes inspite of the fact that there are >less than 64^5 KRB vs KR positions. > >64^5=2^30 >sqrt(64^5)=2^15 > >I know of no program that can solve KRB vs KR positions with no tablebases in >2^15 nodes even if solving only mean finding the right move. > >The question if chess will be solved in the next 50 years is an open question. Nonsense! You have the rest of your life to get over it! >We also do not know what will be the speed of computers 50 years from today. > >Uri Doesn't MATTER!
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.