Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 20:03:08 09/15/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2000 at 15:01:33, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 15, 2000 at 13:43:09, walter irvin wrote: > >>On September 15, 2000 at 13:10:51, José Carlos wrote: >> >>>On September 15, 2000 at 09:38:12, walter irvin wrote: >>> >>>>On September 15, 2000 at 08:18:59, Helmut Conrady wrote: >>>> >>>>>Im wondering, what is the deepest chessproblem ever composed. There is a problem >>>>>created by Petrovic in 1969 which might lead to a mate in 270. >>>>> >>>>>[D]8/Bk3p1p/1P3p2/KP2n2p/1P1p4/1Pp2p2/B1P5/7B w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Unfortunately I haven t got the solution. >>>>> >>>>>Can onyone explain how to win this. >>>>>Does anyone know a deeper problem? >>>>> >>>>>Thanks in advance. >>>>> >>>>>Helmut >>>> >>>>you are wrong the deepest chess position is indeed the start position >>> >>> Are you sure? I really don't understand how can you know that. Maybe you are >>>speaking of positions reachable from the starting position, but not even in that >>>case I can see your point. Can you provide further explanation? >>> >>> José C. >> >>what im saying is the position people should try to solve is the start position >>.every game you play you will see that position .the guy was saying something >>about mate in 245 moves or something .who knows how many moves til mate from >>start position or who is even winning??? so the start position must be the most >>complex position there is . > >It is the most important position for games but it does not prove that it is the >most complex position. > >I agree that this problem is probably not going to be solved by humans but it is >possible that solving this position is easier than solving another legal >position that cannot happen in practical games. I solved this problem easily. I had the position but not the solution, the line to win a tempo i saw after a bit of study. The rest was a peanut then of course. >In order to solve chess you do not need tablebases of all the legal position but >only tablebases of all the logical position. >You do not need to analyze illogical lines like 1.e4 f6 2.e5 g5 3.e6 in order to >solve chess because it is clear that you never reach this position in practical >game. This is bullshit. A program isn't smart enough to know e4 f6 is nonsense. Also who tells me that 1.d4 is a smart move? 1.d4 is something i forbid all students to play: "because you play like an old man then". I ask them all to play 1.e4, or they can forget that i teach them. More tactics there. Better for learning, but also you don't play like an old man then! So i wouldn't take into account 1.d4 too for the same reason as you give above! It's illogical! You don't try to take advantage of your openingsmove in a tactical way with 1.d4, so 1.e4 is much better! If 1.e4 isn't won, then the game of chess isn't won, yet many mainlines all give big advantage for white, but at least a small advantage. The assumption that many illogical positions can be taken out is however not true. Also another thing, We'll never see a database solve the game of chess BEFORE a searching program solves it. If chess has 10^40 positions or something (10^43 i remember in icca posted) then what is the number of nodes a chessprogram with nullmove needs to see the search space, 10^23? What are the number of instructions needed to make the equivalent database, 10^50 ? So EGTB sure make the finishing far endgame a lot better, but they'll walk tens of years behind searching programs with regard to playing chess perfect. Greetings, Vincent >I do not know what is the definition of complexity of positions. >If you define the complexity of a position to be the number of positions that >you need to know the right move in order to play perfectly from the position >that you began from then it is possible that there is a position that is more >complex than the starting position. > >This definition has a problem because it is possible that you need a lot of the >positions but the problem is simple because you can by a general rule to solve >the game. > >Another possible definition is the time that the best possible program need in >order to solve the position(play perfectly against all opponents). >I assume that god write the best possible program to solve the game for this >definition > >The problem with this definition is that it can give more than one answer >because the best possible program may be dependent on the hardware. > >It is impossible for humans to calculate the complexity of the starting position >by one of these defintions. > >Uri
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.