Author: Jesper Antonsson
Date: 15:10:12 05/16/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2001 at 22:03:19, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>Not 20->21, but perhaps 200-201, and certainly with 6000->6001. And this >>algorithm can be constructed, you know that and I know that. That it hasn't been >>done isn't relevant. > >6000 is not enough, using the 50-move rule. You need over 10,000 plies before >you run out of pawn pushes or captures. And that tree will never be searched, >period. 38^10000 is big enough that it could be considered infinite with no >loss of accuracy since nobody can count to that number using any speed of >processor and amount of time you want to name. IE one trillion years is only >5 x 10^23 nanoseconds. I don't think the universe is expected to last that >long. counting once per nanosecond, you have barely started by the time the >universe ends. you have reached 10^23. You are counting to 10^10000. Is >that close enough to infinity to be happy? No. :-) This has nothing to do with big O. >Saying that eventually chess becomes O(1) is therefore simply nonsense. Unless >you can tell me _exactly_ when it will become O(1). From my vantage point, it >will _never_ happen. That is even more nonsense than before, Bob. It doesn't "become" O(1) at some depth or time or whatever. It either is or is not. And by definition, it is.. >Assume machines get 2x faster a year. When do we get a machine that can count >to that ridiculous number? IE what is log2(38^10000)??? I claim it is so big >no human will ever see chess turn into O(1). > >Which means it will stay at O(W^(D/2)) Again, it doesn't "turn" into O(1), it is or is not. Come on, you use a small straightforward definition incorrectly, then actually *quote* the definition and *still* persists in using it incorrectly again and again. What's up with that?
This page took 0.01 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.