Author: Uri Blass
Date: 15:02:46 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 17:55:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 10, 2002 at 17:51:40, Ingo Lindam wrote: > >>On December 10, 2002 at 17:30:47, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2002 at 13:42:36, Bernardo Wesler wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>THE ALGORITHM. A MATHEMATICAL FORMULA THAT , FOR EXAMPLE, ASSURE YOU THAT IF YOU >>>>DO THE FIRST MOVE YOU ALWAYS WIN. >>>>I MEAN TO THINK ABOUT DISCOVERING A CHESS ALGORITHM IS AN UTHOPY? >>> >>>Provably impossible on current hardware and software systems. >>>Maybe in 100 years the game will be formally solved. Not in the near futre. >> >>provably impossible on current hardware...? >>are you sure? > >Absolutely sure. > >To solve chess you must store at least the square root of nodes of the solution >tree. Considering the half move clock and castle rights, it easily exhausts any >possibility of solution. I do not see a proof that there is no mate in 15. I am convinced in it > >>without assuming anything about the kind of solution? > >No assumptions are necessary. We pick an adversary in the tree. It's just like >how you would prove a sort works in O(f(n)). No You do not always need a tree in order to solve problems. I can prove that KR can beat K without a tree and without tablebases. In order to prove a mate it is enough if you divide the positions to classes and prove that you always can go from one class to a better class when the final class is mate positions. I believe that you cannot do it with the hardware of today for chess but I see no proof. Uri
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.