Author: Pham Minh Tri
Date: 20:45:26 05/04/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 04, 2001 at 05:04:23, Uri Blass wrote: >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. > I think you are not clear here. If a problem is solved by a computer, it meas the solution was found, even it may be not the best one. The better computer in 2010 will find the __better__ solution of a solved problem (look like they compute faster any fomulars). > > > 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. > You are true. But in general, no difference because I means the chess problem is solveable now, not in far future. >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.