Author: Ingo Lindam
Date: 15:08:38 12/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 18:02:46, Uri Blass wrote: >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 Thank you Uri... it's a pleasure to me to read your proof that 'provable' was provable not right at this point. :-) internette gruesse, ingo
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.