Author: J. Wesley Cleveland
Date: 18:10:52 05/14/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 14, 2001 at 15:44:28, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 14, 2001 at 14:51:16, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: >[snip] >>I thought that is what we were discussing. If you have a hash table large enough >>to store every position found in the search, then you do not need total path >>information with each position, which means you could solve chess by considering >>"only" about 10^25 positions. So, if Moore's law holds up, we could solve chess >>by the end of the century, rather than by the end of the universe. > >Not a chance. Let's ignore the complication of things like the half-move clock >for now. We shall also ignore the fact that you can ignore all the draw rules >except for material count, and that it may be beneficial to do so at times. > >One of the fields of the hash position is depth. You will not know the answer >to the true value of the position until the position has reached either >won/loss/draw. Since chess has a depth of nearly 12000 plies, that implies a >search so long and so deep that even if it were purely a binary choice you would >never solve it. Just consider 2^10000 [about 2e3010] (which is absurdly >smaller than the chess tree). Take the square root of that. Hmmmm. What you are ignoring, is that with alpha-beta, one side is always making its best move which will eliminate (virtually) all of these extrodinarily deep lines.
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.