Author: Uri Blass
Date: 14:29:08 03/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On March 20, 2002 at 16:57:54, Sune Fischer wrote: >On March 20, 2002 at 16:21:53, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On March 20, 2002 at 16:07:11, Sune Fischer wrote: >> > >>>> >>>>>Even three or four days still will not play to perfection. >>>>>Just look at the numbers 40 to the 30 power will still not give perfection and >>>>>might take years to complete one move. >>>>>But we are working on it. >>>>>Bill >>>> >>>>It is not a proof that perfection is impossible. >>>> >>>>better searching rules(better pruning and extensions) together with better >>>>evaluation may convince programs to find always the best move. >>>> >>>>You do not need to search everything to the end of the game in order to do it >>>>and the question how many plies you need to search is dependent on the >>>>evaluation and on the extensions and the pruning rules. >>>> >>>>Uri >>> >>>Hmm, I think you need to search pretty deeply to find which is best of 1.d4 and >>>1.e4 :) >>>And you prove nothing with pruning rules and nullmove, only way to be _really >>>sure_ is to do a fullwidth search :( >>> >>>-S. >> >>The point is that you do not need to prove that you play perfect game >>in order to play perfect game and I guess that both 1.e4 and 1.d4 >>lead to draw. > >Sure all you need to play perfect is luck, but how will you _know_ that you play >the perfect game, you can't even tell which is better of e4 and d4? :) > >-S. I cannot know but if I see that I never lose games I am going to start to suspect that I play perfect. It is not a proof but if I lose games when I do not always win with one of the colors then it is a proof that I do not play perfect. 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.