Who cares about 50Mhz faster clock speed on component X. I'd classify myself as a geek, but come on, this sort of thing wouldn't be of interest to a dead camel.
"400 FSB Mhz FSB How exciting - Oh no I really hope I can overclock it!!"
Computers will completely doiminate with advances in programming and computer speed, humans will stay the same. I think a human playing defensively will perhaps not lose to a tough computer for some time. It won't be seen for a very long time if the ideal game of chess is played on both sides, if white will win, or the game will be a draw..
There are various ways of doing this, like messing around with the code, forcing the computer to think for 0.001 of a second etc.. There are many computer programs like this, and weaker home-made engines which run on various ICS servers (FICS http://www.freechess.org for example) which are quite beatable by humans at a fairly low level of chess skill. Taking on stronger computers in open tactics is purely suicidal, although I have witnesses some stronger players completely thrash strong programs repeatedly in this mannor.
While chess at the highest level may result in a lot of draws, the games themselves were very interesting in this case, especially games 2 and 5. Chess that is played by lower level players or at a faster time control will likely not end in draws as both sides will make many mistakes.
That this isn't to replace the language in which you write the GAME/whatever. It is to replace the cryptic commands you use to define a method for vertex/pixel shaders (eg. for lighting a polygon, or colouring the vertices of a model) inside that game. So instead of a million and one, glBlahBlahBlahNV().. You write/compile your small effect outside of that source code and your game/whatever will command it to be loaded.
Slashdot Mirror
Who cares about 50Mhz faster clock speed on component X. I'd classify myself as a geek, but come on, this sort of thing wouldn't be of interest to a dead camel.
"400 FSB Mhz FSB How exciting - Oh no I really hope I can overclock it!!"
Computers will completely doiminate with advances in programming and computer speed, humans will stay the same. I think a human playing defensively will perhaps not lose to a tough computer for some time. It won't be seen for a very long time if the ideal game of chess is played on both sides, if white will win, or the game will be a draw..
There are various ways of doing this, like messing around with the code, forcing the computer to think for 0.001 of a second etc..
There are many computer programs like this, and weaker home-made engines which run on various ICS servers (FICS http://www.freechess.org for example) which are quite beatable by humans at a fairly low level of chess skill.
Taking on stronger computers in open tactics is purely suicidal, although I have witnesses some stronger players completely thrash strong programs repeatedly in this mannor.
Doesn't matter a jot, since a draw is 1/2 points each it can (was) drawn after 5 (2.5, 2.5) , and caan still be drawn after 7 (3.5, 3.5).
While chess at the highest level may result in a lot of draws, the games themselves were very interesting in this case, especially games 2 and 5. Chess that is played by lower level players or at a faster time control will likely not end in draws as both sides will make many mistakes.
That this isn't to replace the language in which you write the GAME/whatever. ..
It is to replace the cryptic commands you use to define a method for vertex/pixel shaders (eg. for lighting a polygon, or colouring the vertices of a model) inside that game. So instead of a million and one,
glBlahBlahBlahNV()
You write/compile your small effect outside of that source code and your game/whatever will command it to be loaded.