Author: Uri Blass
Date: 00:29:50 09/16/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 15, 2000 at 23:03:08, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On September 15, 2000 at 15:01:33, Uri Blass wrote: <snipped> >>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. It can be smart enough to not analyze 1.e4 f6 2.e5 g5 3.e6 because 3.Qh5# is better. I did not say that it is smart enough to know that 1...f6 is illogical and if 1.e4 is the first move it needs to know how to play after 1.e4 f6 so it does need to analyze 1.e4 f6 but it does not need to analyze the line that I gave because 2...g5 is illogical move and 3.e6 is another illogical move and there is no point in knowing the right move in cases that both sides did mistakes because these positions will never happen in games. 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.