Author: walter irvin
Date: 12:12:07 10/24/99
Go up one level in this thread
On October 24, 1999 at 12:09:10, Ratko V Tomic wrote: >> i think around 30 ply or so with a average (current)eval and perhaps >> 40 to 50 ply with only material . > >Even 30 plies for exact minimaxing (with over 10^23 nodes examined with optimim >move order) is far beyond any conceivable technology. Selectively, yes, they >even go today 30 plies thay way. As for the 50 plies, with over 10^38 positions, >that would be a "galactic" sized computer, it won't happen. There are also >limits on the minimum size of computer circuits and the customary doubling of >speed every couple years won't go on for much longer. We may see programs >examining perhaps 10^12 positions, equivalent to 15-16 plies of exact >minimaxing. Not a big deal for a well motivated and well prepared GM to subdue. > >The present style programs, essentially alpha-beta searchers with refinements, >are a dead end. Their efficiency (the proportion of non-junk nodes to all nodes >examined) drops toward zero with increasing depth, which is why even otherwise >seemingly unsound selectivity (be it the null-move or gradual ad hoc forward >pruning increasing with depth) appears to work better at higher depths -- even a >random discarding of nodes will end up discarding proportionately more junk at >higher depths, thus it will seem more accurate (and less wasteful of computing >resources). But the programs which will achieve the unquestionable superiority >over the top human players (and, of course, over the present style programs) >will be of a smarter kind, with several layers of control and search trees, >where alpha-beta is only the lowest layer guided between the nodes of the sparse >next higher level tree by the reasoning components (similar to what humans do >when they use computer for in depth analysis). there is one other posibility for computers to all but smash gm's .that is to come up with a opening table base that would always leave the computer in a very , very good position out of the opening .they have done it with the ending i say it can be done with the opening .not all the way to check mate just to a good advantage .there may be a limit to how many nps (except multi processors) that computers will attain .but who knows just how much data can be stored .there are only a certain number of positions that can safely be reached against strong opposition , out of the opening . i think programers should be going in that direction in order to make programs stronger .one thing a computer does better than ANY man and that is to remember or store vast amounts of data . people cant even remember where they put their car keys !(ha ha ) i think research into the opening of chess games is in order . maybe the current human openings are not the best . maybe a computer could find what man does not have the time or inclination to find ie certain moves man may deem too risky .
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.