Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:41:37 12/23/00
Go up one level in this thread
On December 23, 2000 at 12:44:52, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On December 23, 2000 at 12:25:18, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 23, 2000 at 09:01:29, Joshua Lee wrote: >> >>>this is over a google and even if your program could search at 5 trillion nodes >>>per second it wouldn't solve chess in your lifetime. >>> >>> 64^64 is one number that comes to mind 3.9402006196394479212279040100144e+115 >> >>The number of leagl positions is clearly smaller than 64^64. >> >>I do not understand why do you think about 64^64. >> >>Uri > > >I still think 10^120 is a reasonable estimate, because a position is not just >made up of the pieces on the board. In order to find if chess is a win for one side or a draw you need only tablebases for all the positions in the board when the position is made only of the pieces on the board. It _also_ includes the game history up to >that position, because of 50 move and repetition considerations. Repetition consideration is not relevant unless you want to analyze positions when there is a history of repetition and you need to be careful to avoid a third repetition. In other cases if one side can win this side can do it also without repeating the same position 3 times. You can ignore the number of plies without captures for playing. The program can evaluate a position as a draw only if it is a draw assuming that the last move is a capture. When the program evaluates a position as a win for one side it can play the move that reduce the distance for conversion to the minimal value so it will never miss a win. 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.