Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: What do programmers think about a chess algorithm??

Author: Dann Corbit

Date: 11:08:22 12/12/02

Go up one level in this thread


On December 12, 2002 at 12:47:20, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote:
[snip]
>You are the one that said you could prove that chess was not currently solvable,
>which means others can speculate and you have to prove them wrong.

I was wrong. See some other message I wrote elsewhere in this thread in answer
to Heiner.
[snip]
>The proof takes only a few steps. Define king confined in a rectangle n,m as
>queen on square n+1,m+1, king in the rectangle not adjacent to the queen, and
>opposing king outside the rectangle n+1,m+1. Prove if the king is confined in a
>rectangle of 3,1 or 3,2, it is checkmate. Prove if the king is confined in a
>rectangle of n,1, you can force it to be confined in a rectangle of n-1,1. Prove
>if the king is confined in a rectangle of n,m, you can force it to be confined
>in a rectangle of n-1,m or n,m-1. Prove that you can confine the king in a
>rectangle. QED.

This proof will take exactly the same number of steps to complete as the tree
search.  Hence it is an implicit tree.

I could just post a ten line minimax algorithm and say:
"Chess is solved."

We can easily show that the algorithm terminates.



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.