Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:41:27 01/21/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 21, 2000 at 19:28:38, walter irvin wrote:
>which is more important ?????? is it posible that a program written on a 286
>25mhz 4mg ram could be stronger than deep blue ????? is it posible that a
>program like sargon ran on a machine that produced 2,000,000,000,000,000 nps
>could reach 2900 elo ?? perhaps there are great untried methods that will
>produce major elo jumps ????
My 286 program would look like this:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
static char str[4096];
main()
{
char *err;
getmove:
puts("Tell me, Kasparov, what move should I make?");
err = fgets(str, sizeof str, stdin);
if (err == 0) goto getmove;
if (strcmp(str, "quit\n") == 0) exit(0);
printf("I choose: %s", str);
goto getmove;
return 0;
}
But it needs a special operator to be effective (His name is in the code).
Actually, you raise a good question, which is this:
Is chess O(exp(n))? {where n is the depth in plies}
If we could discover an algorithm linear in n [stop laughing all you chess
programmers] then a 286 could pound the stuffings out of Deep Blue.
Conversely, can it be proven that the search in chess cannot be made in
polynomial time as a function of plies of lookahead? How about a subset search
that produces "good enough" answers?
In other words, a fundamentally better algorithm for searching chess positions
could render all chess programs obsolete. Don't hold your breath, though. A
lot of smart people have been looking and nobody has found one yet.
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.