Author: Uri Blass
Date: 02:04:23 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 01:46:06, Pham Minh Tri wrote: >Hi friends, > >Some recent posts raise some interesting questions to me: What is chess the >problem and has it been solved or not? Many people believe that we can not solve >the chess problem because of exponential cost and can only approximate the >solutions, which is good enough. However, we have not been given clear and >unique definitions of the chess problem and of what is a solution. If you give >me one, the answer would probably be different. I think, with almost all >definitions, we can be happy to say, the chess problem was solved (or been >solved in this year). For example: > >Some old books (actually, I did not read about their definitions but could infer >from them) define a chess problem in that with any given positions of chess, we >would know the results and how to defeat (or draw) the opponent. I am sure those >problems were solved with some evidence: > >1) Opening positions: To me, any good chess programs of people in this club >could beat me easily all games, even if I play the white or black side. It proves only that chess proghrams are better than you. It does not prove that chess is solved. Suppose all the humans in the world have rating of at most 1400. somebody with rating of 2000 comes from the moon to visit them and win against all of them. Did (s)he solve chess? It is clear that (s)he did not solve chess but the humans may think that he solved chess if they use your logic. If you claim that chess is solved you need to prove that there is something that cannot be beated. If the best computer can be beated by better hardware that can be used in 2010 then it is a proof that chess was not solved. The >situation is the same with almost all people in the world (as they may be beaten >by the best chess programs). With some top players like Garry, the DB has beaten >him since 1997 in an __old__ computer. 3.5-2.5 is not a significant result to know if DB was better and DB had the advantage that kasparov could not see previous games of DB against other players. I think with the best computer nowadays >(note that I mention any kinds of computer, not only PC), which may be 1000 >times as fast as DB, and a huge additional knowledge of 4 years, they could beat >any GMs. I think that you are wrong because the DB team probably did not work on chess since 1997 and DB was hardware that was designed for chess and the new hardware is not designed for chess. 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.