Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:00:45 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 12:41:52, Uri Blass wrote: [snip] >The question is what is the meaning of solving chess. >If the meaning of solving chess is creating an unbeatable program then in order >to create an unbeatable program this information is not relevant. >You only need the 32 piece tablebases and even less than it because most of the >legal positions are not relevant and you only need to store positions when you >can get into them(for example you do not need to know the result of the game >from the position after 1.f3 f6 because you will never get this positionm in a >practical game). > >If your first move is 1.e4 and after 1.d4 you reply 1...Nf6 and if these moves >are correct based on the 32 piece tablebases then you do not need information >about the position after 1.d4 d5 because you can be unbeatable without getting >there. The tablebase solution is only trading time complexity for space complexity (which is also exponential). If you ground the universe into powder, will it hold the 32 man set? How will you compute the tablebase files? Considering the time it takes to calculate a single 6 man tablebase file (and which requires the 5 men files) how long will it take to create the [single, thankfully] 32 man file? ;-) There seems to be a lot of people arguing that chess isn't expoential at all. It's constant time, apparently. In fact (in another of your posts) you proposed a constant. Such definitions are truly useless, because if chess were a constant time problem, it would be in the easiest of all problem sets. Easier that sorting. Easier EVEN than finding an item from an already sorted list. Why aren't people solving chess? Must be something wrong with the reasoning. Either that, or the notion of O(1) is totally useless.
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.