Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:38:32 01/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2005 at 20:27:48, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 18, 2005 at 20:18:32, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 18, 2005 at 20:01:21, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 18, 2005 at 19:45:36, Anthony Cozzie wrote: >>> >>>>Chandler, your statement "chess cannot be solved by computers" is patently >>>>WRONG. Zappa on my opteron can solve chess, it would just take a VERY long time >>>>to do so. TSCP on a PDA can solve chess, it would just take even longer. >>> >>>I know nothing about zappa but I am sure that tscp cannot solve chess. >>> >>>It has limited depth of 32 plies based on my memory so it will never search >>>lines that are longer than 32 plies. >>> >>>I believe that zappa also cannot solve chess. >>> >>>possible reasons except the reason of maximal depth are: >>>1)zappa use null move pruning that is not correct so it may miss some zugzwang. >>>2)zappa has some bug that will cause it to crash after 12345678910111213 nodes >>>It never search that number of nodes so you never found that bug. >>>3)There is no hardware that live forever and you will get an hardware crash >>>after 1234 years of search regardless of the hardware that you use. >>>4)God decided that this world has only 123456789 years to live and zappa needs >>>more time to solve chess so it simply not fast enough. >> >>What if there is a forced checkmate and it is 40 plies away from the root? >> >>You cannot know that the universe will end before Zappa finds it, even >>pragmatically. > >I only said :"I believe that zappa cannot solve chess" > >> >>Turning off null move will halve the search depth, but going to proof search >>instead of evaluation may double it. So even the loss of null move may not >>matter. Besides, even if it is still halved, you just double the time. >> >>It is a mistake to say that something cannot happen, no matter how absurd. >>IMO-YMMV. > >I did not say that it cannot happen but only that I believe that it cannot >happen. >> >>I believe that many smart people at one time believed that a computer would >>never beat a GM. And probably after that, many believed that a computer could >>never beat the strongest player in the world. >> >>We do not know how hard it is to solve chess, except for the worst case. It is >>possible to stumble onto a solution tomorrow. > >Everything is possible but I believe that it will not be solved in the near >future and that it will not solved by a program that exist today. This is (of course) something that is a highly reasonable position, and not at all like "Chess cannot be solved." Of course, you know that very well. I am only pointing out that the two statements are nearly opposite: "Chess cannot be solved" "Chess might not be solved" even though they sound very similar.
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.