Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:33:51 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2005 at 22:37:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. I wrote: "maybe more than 1000000 times faster than today is simply impossible practically" I think that maybe impossible practically and improbable mean the same. 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.