Author: Keith Kitson
Date: 08:42:31 04/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 1999 at 11:22:38, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 14, 1999 at 10:59:55, Rajen Gupta wrote: > >>Is it inevitable that all chess programmes must hit the wall? Genius and MChess >>Pro are two of the most outstanding examples. rebel 10 has not been rated and >>would be difficult to do so in the absence of autoplayer, but perhaps rebel is >>nearing the wall as well. eventually i think we'll reach a stage where all >>software progress on single processor machines ceases and we must rely on higher >>processor speeds and multiprocessor configurations on the hardware side for >>improvements in playing strength.I wonder whether multi threaded chess playing >>engines would be the answer to progressively improving playing strength on thr >>software side? >> >>rajen gupta > >I doubt that we have maxed out on the software side, even on single processor >systems. For example, Crafty 16.6 seems to be doing real well compared to >previous versions of Crafty on single processor systems and Robert has been >working on Crafty for years. > >I do think that some paradigm shifts will be required in order to improve >performance drastically on the software side, but until those shifts come into >focus, it would be difficult to pre-determine what they will be. I think that >the wall is still relatively soft. The difference is that the programs are >improving only slightly compared to 15 years ago. But they are still improving >(although they seem to be at the stage where they can also get worse from one >release to the next) and not just due to hardware. > >KarinsDad :) It occurs to me that our abilities to build tactical awareness into programs has been quite successful. Our major aim now should be to build in better strategic elements. Better planning and long term follow through of a plan. I know strong chess players, see patterns, and look at the board dynamically. If we can build this sort of awareness into the programs, without detrimentally affecting the tactical side then I see some strides forward being made. How long it will take to achieve this I find it difficult to predict. One of the itme that i find unusual, is that for some programs that use Hash Tables they clear the hash tables down after every move. That is not the way a human players memory works. They define a plan, perhaps with some alternatives, then they use they use the plan over the course of the game. They don't start again from scratch to build a plan with each ply (or half move) that is made. I reckon some strides forward could be made here in time savings, to allow deeper lines of thought within the given time controls. there again the deeper the program calculates the less the accuracy of the line due to search curtailment criteria. I shall watch with interest over the next few years to see how things develop. Kkitson
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.