Author: Telmo C. Escobar
Date: 14:43:10 05/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2005 at 14:13:10, Werner Kraft wrote: >In computer chess , the method to find a move is based on " tree - searching " >- you >have a move ( 1.e4 ) - then the 20 reply moves for black . SO you build up >trees - every variation move is a new branch on it. >Now - as a complete analysis of a chess game involves 10-power 120 positions - >you introduce evaluation system ... > >Was there ever another way of looking at that - may be from exotic branches of >mathematics - topology e,g ? > Topology, till now, has little to say about finitary situations like chess. Also it hardly could be named exotic. >I was also thinking about new methods for humans to beat very powerful machines- >I mean , there are some gifted individuals , who can calculate roots from large >numbers - and they must use some kind mathematical system - shortcuts, that >allow them to approximate etc. > Strangely enough, people capable to calculate roots of large numbers, and the like, tend to be mentally handicaped and hardly capable of playing chess. True, some exceptions are possible: Ramanujan, for example, was a true magician with numbers and also quite able to do abstract reasoning as it's customary in math- but a Ramanujan is very very rare, even Gauss didn't belong in the same class. >Now , what if there would exist some methods to allow human chess players the >same thing - a kind of a human way to calculate " Naidorf tables " in the head ? >Would that be the tool for The ELO 3500 player of the future ? :-) Human's strength lies not in calculating but in understanding and it is in department that we could expect significant improvement in the future. Telmo
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.