Author: James Swafford
Date: 08:00:31 01/09/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 09, 2000 at 06:20:26, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 08, 2000 at 22:23:28, Arshad Syed wrote: > >Before writing about exploring other solar systems by mankind with >rockets faster than the speed of light (because that's a peanut >compared to quantum technology), Not according to Einstein. :-) Ever heard of the theory of relativity? As you approach the speed of light, your mass approaches infinity!! >can you please show me a photograph of what a quantum actually is? > What!? >>Quantum technology seems to be the next big leap in the field of computing. From >>my understanding, it supposedly will be relatively much faster than todays >>semi-conductor technology. Probably even a PC based on this method would be much >>faster and powerful than todays supercomputers (DEEP BLUE??). Would it be >>possible that such a computer would finally play 'perfect' chess - losing no >>games, probably drawing a few in worst case scenario? >> >>Here are just my opinions: >> >>1.) A chess program/computer is only as good as its evaluation function gets. >>While monsters like DB are good at calculations - tactical play, their >>positional knowledge - light squares/dark squares, mobility etc. - is below that >>of a GM. DB for instance in an earlier version (DEEP THOUGHT?) lost convincingly >>to Kasparov. It was only after a year of programming by Joel Benjamin that it >>managed to defeat Kasparov. I feel that computers at quantum speed, would find >>more time to do extensive positional analysis in the eval function at the nodes, >>which would help plug the holes in the program, which currently seem to me to be >>more due to deficiencies in positional analysis. >> >>2.) Even the most powerful computers now are unable in the middle game to search >>every single position. As a result some moves are ignored due to horizon effect. >>With the new technology, maybe this will no longer be an issue. Add the improved >>positional analysis, and the PC programs would be playing at the level of a >>World Champion. >> >>3.) With ply-depth no longer a programming issue, programmers would be able to >>focus on other issues such as AI - I mean genuine machine learning, which would >>allow programs to even simulate human styles based on methods other than >>weights. >> >>Just my 2 cents.... >> >>Regards, >>Arshad
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.