Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 04:37:50 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 10, 2002 at 18:28:08, Dann Corbit wrote: >In order to prove that they are irrelevant, you will have to solve the tree. In >order to solve the tree you will have to compute and store it. > >>in that case knowing the theoretic result after 1.a4 a6 is going to change >>nothing. >> >>Tree is only one way to prove things. >> >>It is possible to prove that KQ vs K without the 50 move rule win in n*n chess >>board for every dimension n. > >Believe it or not, you form a tree to solve it. You might have an alternate >formulation, but a tree solution will be perfectly equivalent and optimal. I think that is the flaw in you argument ;) You have no proof the "tree solution will be perfectly equivalent and optimal". I always think of the tree search as a lack of better tools approach. Then again IIRC it can be proven, that the MHD equations are impossible to solve analyticly, but to my knowledge no one has proved this about chess yet. -S.
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.