Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 01:16:45 02/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On February 07, 2000 at 13:52:10, Dann Corbit wrote: >On February 05, 2000 at 06:40:08, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >[snip] >>Jeremiah >>(I don't have to write a poem for you, do I? :) >Certainly not. We have already seen what a debacle that can turn out to be. Whew! I'm probably a much worse poet than you...It would be ugly. :) >In any case, the outcome really is not certain unless they finish the game to >the end. Who knows what would happen in the real case? I'd always like to think the programs would play 'optimally', or 'perfectly', but my hopes are always smashed the next time I see one play. I have learned at least one thing: in computer chess, the outcome is never sure until a mate happens. This is especially true in faster games, but I've seen strange things happen also in longer time controls. <dream> Perhaps one day, someone will invent some algorithm(s), hardware, or whatever else is necessary for a computer to play 'perfect' chess (Or, as close to perfect as is necessary/possible.). </dream>
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.