Author: blass uri
Date: 23:43:24 04/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 14, 1999 at 17:09:10, William H Rogers wrote: >With all of the maga bytes that the newest programs have now, it is a matter of >time before chess might be solved. I agree If you wait 99999999999999999999 years then chess will be solved( For example: some programs have opening books >that go 20 moves deep, and others have ending data bases that can see a mate in >10 or more moves. There have been some games played where one person has been >checkmated without the program ever having to leave its books! >Sooner or later someone will be able to put it all together and find a solution >to most games, but I think that it will only be accomplished when someone has >finally figured out a different kind of chess knowledge to program in. ie. >something besides tactics, meaning almost explictly captures. When that person >finally puts a handle on positional plays, then we will see a great new game. >It was once said that for every step forward we take, we sometimes we have to >back up a couple of squares and start over. I would still like to see chess >tournements where the programs are limited to on 10 or so moves in their opening >books, I think that the opening book is not so important If you have a bad program then it is easy to get it out of book in a few moves and win(you may have slightly worse position in the opening but it is not important because computers do not know to take advantage of it). Kasparov played with black against deeper blue 1.e4 c6 2.d4 d6 to get deeper blue out of theory and got a good position. > and no end game hash tables. endgame tablebases are not so important(in most of the games these tablebases do not change the result). 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.