Author: Vincent Vega
Date: 17:29:49 05/09/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 09, 2001 at 20:05:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On May 09, 2001 at 20:00:09, Peter McKenzie wrote: > >>On May 09, 2001 at 19:34:08, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On May 09, 2001 at 19:31:32, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>>If someone pays you to give an algorithm analysis of chess will you really >>>>>report that it is O(1)? >>>> >>>> >>>>Yes and I will point to the access of Nalimov EGTBs as an example of such an >>>>algorithm. I will observe that in principle 5-man EGTBs can be extended to >>>>32-man EGTBS, though this has no practical significance. >>> >>>This is an incompetent assessment. 32 man EGTB's cannot even conceivably be >>>attempted if half the universe were turned into computers and the other half >>>computed madly until the power went out. >> >>Dan, it seems to me that Ricardo is presenting a logical argument here. I don't >>think the argument is refuted by you calling it incompetent! >> >>Similarly, I don't see why the practical difficulties of constructing 32 man >>EGTBs should detract from their theoretical existance. > >Because if you can't make one, it won't ever exist. > Lowest estimates of the number of atoms in the Universe are about 10^30 times larger than the estimates of the number of tablebase entries needed to play perfect chess from the starting position. This doesn't even take into account the fact that only a very small fraction of these positions have a chance of occurring in a game played perfectly by one side and that compressing them is quite possible. So please stop perpetuating this "Universe" nonsense.
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.