Author: Uri Blass
Date: 10:29:16 07/05/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 05, 2002 at 12:05:06, Sune Fischer wrote: >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. Note that a program does not have to find the long mate in order to play perfect chess. It only needs not to do mistakes. Let assume for the discussion that not doing mistake in KRB vs KBN position may be a hard problem that cannot be solved by searching 50 plies forward(I am not sure if it is the case) I still believe that black can avoid the trouble of being the weaker side in KRB vs KBN position by searching 50 plies forward so it does not prove that searching 50 plies forward is not enough never to lose games. The only problem that I can think about in that case is when the program play against a weaker player and plays the stronger side of KRB vs KBN. Uri
This page took 0.03 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.