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.