Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:18:56 07/27/01
Go up one level in this thread
On July 27, 2001 at 14:12:00, Roy Eassa wrote: >That was a great analogy! > >"If you are ill, see a physicist instead of a doctor, since the body is 100% >atoms." > >The fact (which I agree with) that chess is 100% tactics is, in the real world, >not the deciding issue in this argument, since the best humans and the fastest >computers can see only a tiny bit of those tactics in many positions. Thus >strategy / positional factors are critical in supplementing tactics for any >positions in which there is no tactical "win" within the look-ahead (and these >positions occur in essentially EVERY game that follows current opening theory). > >Should the fields of medicine, biology, and even chemistry disappear as a result >of the fact that physics is the science that describes the underlying components >(atoms and then subatomic particles)? No, because in reality we'll never have >the ability to reduce all medical issues to physics, just as we cannot reduce >all chess positions to tactics, due to the unimaginably high numbers involved. > >(I believe there are more possible chess positions than there are atoms in the >universe!) There are less that 10^48 possible legal chess position when there are clearly more atoms in the universe. 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.