🚀 go-pugleaf

We are just at the beginning.

Chess, is a theoretically finite activity. If my experience with end game
tablebases is any indication, this fact is not impossible for a computer.
For example, we now have all the end game table bases for three, four and
five piece endings, with some in the six piece area. It is not much of a
stretch, in my opinion except for storage and retrieval paradigmns, to see
thirty-two piece end game table bases (we're no longer in end games here).

I have seen multi-processor (SMP) operating systems which allow Chess
programs to access more computing power than ever before, allowing a million
nodes per second to be examined, and I am eagerly awaiting distributed
operating systems which will allow Chess programs to access many machines on
a distributed network.

When you consider that almost all of the computational progress which we now
take for granted as being a fact of humankind, took place in a single
century, one can only imagine what is to come.

I have no idea where it will all end, only that it will.

Tom Klem

"Russell" <rreagan@mail.utexas.edu> wrote in message
news:9e1g6o$4fs$1@oprah.cc.utexas.edu...
> > I wonder what a computer chess programs ELO would be running under these
?
> >
> > Will a desktop computer be as strong as IBM Deeper Blue ??
>
> Chess is a game that is not going to be solved (i.e. the complete search
> from opening until ending) with current technology.  You can add a million
> processors, and it might help, but it would take billions of years to
> complete a search of this size even if you took every computer in the
world
> and put them working on this one problem.  Not to mention the space
required
> to store the information simply does not exist.
>
> And on the other side of things...
>
> I read some articles on new expiremental technology, that in "theory",
will
> allow us to solve problems that would take our current technology billions
> of years to be solved in minutes.  It has something to do with electrons
and
> the way they rotate.  Assuming that this technology sometime comes into
> realization, the problem of storing the massive amount of information
needs
> to be addressed.  I read another article (the same article actually) that
> talked about another experimental technology that would allow us to store
> the amount of information required in something the size of a dime.  It
uses
> some kind of laser light beam to store information.  Again, this is all in
> theory.
>
> But to answer your question, adding more processing power (with the
current
> technology) is going to help things, but not make computers be able to
> destroy every GM that they play.  The top humans still have the edge over
> computers in long games, and they will continue to until some new
technology
> of method of playing computer chess is invented/discovered.  30 GHz
> processors wouldn't be as strong as Deep Blue I don't imagine because Deep
> Blue was hardware for the most part, not software.  It should be
interesting
> to see how IBM's next project, Deep Gene, will perform.  It is said to be
> able to do a quadrillion operations per second (1 million GHz).  It should
> be strong, and it's using some kind of method of modeling the human brain
I
> believe.  So if it can accurately model the human brain and go faster than
> the human brain, then we might see the end of humans having the edge over
> computers in long games.
>
>