Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 09:05:06 07/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2002 at 11:37:30, Uri Blass wrote: >On July 05, 2002 at 11:02:43, Sune Fischer wrote: > >>On July 05, 2002 at 10:54:06, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On July 05, 2002 at 10:51:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >>> >>>>On July 05, 2002 at 06:59:51, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 05, 2002 at 05:59:30, stuart taylor wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On July 04, 2002 at 21:47:11, Omid David wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Computers are like a blind person, they can do very well in the radius of their >>>>>>>stick, but can't see farther. >>>>>> >>>>>>Isn't that radius almost complete now? How much is left? >>>>>>S.Taylor >>>>> >>>>>A lot is left. >>>>>The radius of their stick is clearly less than a half of >>>>>the radius that is needed. >>>> >>>>Define "needed". >>>>Kicking GM butts is not enough? :) >>> >>>Until the radius is clear to the end of the game tree, there will always be room >>>for improvement. If not against humans, then against other programs. >> >>Yes, but since Uri said "half" I assumed he didn't mean distance to solve the >>game, in that case we need more than 30 times the depth. The longest known mate >>is 260 something IIRC, and that is a simple 6 man position. >> >>-S. > >I said less than a half. >I did not say half. I didn't write half, I wrote "half" as in that ballpark. >I thought about solving the game but I do not know how much is needed to >practically solve the game. > >It is possible that some program can solve practically the game by searching to >depth of 50 plies. Anything is possible, but it is not probable, which is what I'm interested in. If we were to extract some ideas from the tablebases, then I think we would get that positions with approximately even material and lots of pieces usually have very long mates. >I do not know how much is needed but I believe that we do not need to search to >the end of the game and the number of plies that is needed is a function of the >quality of the evaluation. We do to be sure. >I believe that it is easier to solve chess than to prove that the game is >solved. I don't. If you solve it you are construction the proof in the process, so it has to be the other way around. >I believe that it is possible that we will see in 50 years that all the >comp-comp games between top programs are drawn without proving that chess is a >draw. Probably, but you try and play KR-KN, or KQQ-KQR without tablebases, that will also end in a draw. I proves nothing if they don't search _to the end_! :) >Uri -S.
This page took 0.02 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.