Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 10:23:23 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 12:59:11, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 12:55:16, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On December 11, 2002 at 02:10:44, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2002 at 19:54:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On December 10, 2002 at 19:46:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>[snip] >>>>>I do not believe that it is possible to solve it with the hardware of today so >>>>>I am not going to try. >>>>>It is not a proof that it is impossible to solve it. >>>> >>>>Suppose that you claim a mate in n. In what way will you prove it? >>>> >>>>I will take an opponent position with a different result. You will have to >>>>prove it is unreachable. >>>> >>>>There is no way to do that without solving the nodes of the tree. >>>> >>>>Consider some mate in n claim that you make. I show you a game between two >>>>superGM's that follows a different path. You will have to prove that each of >>>>the nodes is unreachable by an opponent. >>>> >>>>There is no way to do that without solving the nodes of the tree. >>>> >>>>It seems very clear to me. >>> >>>No >>> >>>For example for fortress positions it may be possible t prove no mate in n >>> >>>[D]7k/8/6KP/7P/7P/7P/4B2P/8 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>There is no mate in n for white >> >>Of course, this can be proven with a tree. > >I still don't see why 'it can be done with' >should be the same as 'has to be done with' I never said it 'has to be done with' -- only that they are equivalent and alternatives will not be superior. For that matter, the tree is nothing more than a visualization aid. The steps will be the same whether or not a tree is used to visualize it.
This page took 0.01 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.