Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 10:42:07 10/12/01
Go up one level in this thread
Hi On October 12, 2001 at 13:32:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>And where exactly is the proof that the so-called solutions of these tests >>really are the best? Or is it more like opening theory where the so-called >>book moves just happen to be considered best/good by a large number of >>people, whereas it's possible that white to move is lost from the beginning >>(due to ZugZwang ;) and the best defense is a3? (maybe followed by h6! hee) >> >>Sargon > > >Some of them are provably correct (almost all in fact). But they take >far longer than 36 hours. With proof you mean a computer calculation, right? I can imagine that certain endgame solutions can be prooved by humans rather easily, but I doubt that complex middlegame situations allow a human being to proof something in most cases. >If you really think 36 hours will solve _any_ problem, then you must think >that computers are unbeatable at correspondence chess? They are _far_ from >it in fact... Oh, I'm _far_ from believing that. Especially since "any problem" involves the initial position. I even think that computer would be _far far away_ from playing perfect (which solving any problem means to me) even if they can solve every Nolot position under 1 second. Heck, even in 0.001 seconds. :) Sargon
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.