Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 19:37:48 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 21:29:45, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 21:10:25, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 20:30:28, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:23:57, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 19:40:26, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 18:55:04, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 18:49:06, chandler yergin 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. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Key Word: >>>>>>>"Seems" >>>>>>> >>>>>>>There is a Practical Limit! >>>>>>>There is not enough time even to the end of the World to "Brute Force" >>>>>>>all possible combinations... Until you do, there is NO Proof of anything! >>>>>>>Now if you can't understand that.. I'm sorry! >>>>>> >>>>>>The computer does not have to calculate chess perfectly to the end. It only has >>>>>>to outcalculate its opponent. >>>>> >>>>>Reminds me of the story wehn Einstein & Nils Bohr >>>>>were hiking in the woods... >>>>>They came accross a huge grizzly bear.. >>>>>Nils bent down and started going through his backpack, pulled out , and started >>>>>putting on his Tennis shoes.. >>>>>"VAT are you doing Nils?".. said Einstein, >>>>>"You can't outrun that Bear!" >>>>> >>>>>Nils replied.. "I only have to outrun YOU, Dr. Einstein!" >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> Very soon, humans will have no chance against >>>>>>computers. >>>>> >>>>>The Opening Tree.. the Opening Book is a DataBase of Positions PLAYED! >>>>> >>>>>Humans determine Theory! Programs "Store & Retrieve" information.. >>>>> >>>>>In a Game of Human vs Computers... >>>>>Humans are playing what Top GM's have played before! >>>>>Computers have NO Intelligence! You know that! >>>>>ONLY when by "Advanced Chess...Humans USING Computers to advance Theory >>>>>will the ELO Rating of Humans & Computers advance.. >>>>>Humans.. have to PLay the games FIRST! >>>>>NOW.. The Formula for ELO Ratings is such that for GM'S, they Win or Lose >>>>>very FEW POINTS for a loss among their Peers! >>>>>Therefore.. ELO Ratings will NOT JUMP! For either Humans OR Computers. >>>> >>>>Intelligence is not needed to play the game of chess. Only compute power and >>>>storage. It is just like any other game with a deterministic tree. >>>> >>>>It will be a few years longer until GO is solved, but in 20 years, the best GO >>>>players will also be slaughtered by a computer. >>> >>>We do not know it. >> >>True. It is the most likely outcome, however. >> >>>We even do not know that chess will be solved and it is only a possibility >>> >>>I also think that the difference between solving chess and solving go is big and >>>solving chess is clearly easier problem and machine that is 1000000 times faster >>>and have 1000000 time more memory than the machine that is needed to solve chess >>>will be unable to solve go. >> >>Then, in log2(1000000) years, we will solve the other after the first. >>Less than 20 years is not such a long time to wait if you are a curious fellow. > >I said that log2(100000) years will not be enough if you assume doubling every >year. > >Number of positions in go is probably more than 2^361(simple upper bound is >3^361) > >suppose for the discussion that it is 2^361 > >number of positions in chess is probably less than 2^160 > >2^361/2^160=2^201 so you may need 201 years if you assume doubling every year. >Of course it is possible that the improvement will be faster than doubling every >year but at least it is not clear that go will be solved few years after >chess and I think that it is not clear that chess will be solved. > >I can imagine upper bound for technology and maybe more than 1000000 times >faster than today is simply impossible practically. Not long ago, this message would have seemed impossible. The internet had not been invented yet. I think it a mistake to pronounce anything as impossible. Improbable is the best we can do.
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.