Author: blass uri
Date: 03:52:00 06/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On June 12, 1999 at 21:40:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 12, 1999 at 16:03:53, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>Hi Bob: >>You are right: evolutive improvements over time are the way things has happened >>until now in this field, BUT by the same reason I smell the posibility of an >>uncoming breaktrought. I mean, if you take a look at every technology and >>science, always great breaktroughts are preceded by a long, sustained period of >>time where the main issues of a field seems to be solved and just and only >>improving. It was so with steam locomotives -that reached a great level of >>perfection-, it was so with pre-einstein physics, it was so with every >>machinery, technique and body of ideas that have ever been created. In fact is >>that same evolution that prepares the road to breaktrought as much the evolution >>develops all chances hidden in a previous revolutionary idea. >>Course, we have the issue about how much is breaktrought. In that and in >>relation with chess computers, you and other programmers here have the word, not >>lay as me, but then i would like to ask you which you believe could be a >>possible breaktrought.. Maybe pattern recognition of key positions as GM do? >>Greetings from Chile >>fernando > > >This is an interesting issue. For me, a 'breakthrough' is not needed, because >our present approach has shown that it _can_ beat GM players. I think that a breakthrough is needed for commercial programs. In the past programmers did not try enough to be more selective because they could sell their programs without it. I am not sure if they can do it after the deep blue chip becomes commercial. 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.