Author: Charles Milton Ling
Date: 15:36:11 07/06/99
Go up one level in this thread
On July 06, 1999 at 13:53:22, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On July 02, 1999 at 17:11:00, Paul Richards wrote: > >>On July 02, 1999 at 16:25:28, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On July 02, 1999 at 14:16:50, James T. Walker wrote: >>> >>>>Hello, >>>>I see the change in strategy by the top GM's in the Frankfurt Masters tournament >>>>as an admission that they can no longer compete with Fritz on the "up and up". >>>>Resorting to anticomputer strategy/tactics by the worlds best chess players is >>>>the first signal that the end is near. Computer domination is just around the >>>>corner. >>>>Jim Walker >>> >>> >>>I think you are wrong. What is right around the corner is a big hammer, >>>once the GM players start playing vs the computer's obvious weaknesses. It >>>will take another 10 years probably to combat such play. And once the GMs >>>start doing it, we are going to have a difficult time for a while. It is >>>hard to do at blitz, but at game/30 it is possible, and at 40/2hr games, it >>>is not hard at all... >> >> >>It may be difficult on a PC just by trying to increase the program's chess >>knowledge, but I wonder how many anticomputer tricks there are and how long they >>could be relied upon. Going out of book can be addressed by growing a gigantic >>analyzed book a la Mr. Corbit's project. A huge book and deep search might >>obviate the need for a lot of additional knowledge. As it is there haven't been >>that many 40/2 man-machine games, so total war has not been declared. ;) We've >>already seen what a determined group of propeller-heads can do to Kasparov with >>sufficient motivation. ;) I think the programmers would adapt quite well if they >>had sufficient man-machine game data to work with. > > >Don't forget the 'math'. 99.9999999999999% of opening theory does _not_ follow >moves like 1. a3 or 1. h3. So if a GM starts out like that, then the computer >is going to be on its own. And there is no way to make a book wide enough to >cover that... What I find interesting (and I may have said this before) is that David Levy commented at the time of Kasparov - Deep Blue (II) that he was amazed that Kasparov did *not* play 1. a3... The idea has been out there for a long time. Charley
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.