Author: Graham Laight
Date: 08:09:31 01/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 06, 2000 at 10:26:58, Robert Hyatt wrote: >I disagree there. If you let a GM play a computer over and over, and _then_ >play the same program in some serious games, the computer is going to catch >hell. Humans evolve. Computer programs do not. Once he finds a hole, he >will exploit it over and over, while a human would 'learn'. > >That will be a weakness for another 25 years or more. Is the number of such "holes" infinite? And can the GMs learn an infinite number of "holes" that they must avoid in order to get the opportunity to put the computer in its hole? The upper limit to the number of "holes" a GM can know about in his head at any given time is probably about 50,000 - based on studies showing that GMs have knowledge of about this number of "piece patterns" (or "positional themes"). However, this doesn't stop Bob from being right about this. There may be a huge number of such "holes" - and it may be that computers v humans becomes a cat and mouse game of covering holes (computers) vs digging new holes (the humans). But I also think that it's possible that computers simply become so good that no human will be able to beat them. If this happens, then on the current trend it will take less than 25 years. -g
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.