Author: Omid David
Date: 07:05:25 11/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2002 at 09:30:59, Sune Fischer wrote: >On November 03, 2002 at 09:16:39, Omid David wrote: > >>On November 03, 2002 at 09:00:59, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On November 03, 2002 at 08:41:28, Omid David wrote: >>> >>>>On November 03, 2002 at 08:27:42, Joachim Rang wrote: >>>> >>>>>On November 03, 2002 at 07:37:26, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>I believe that chess can be practically solved. >>>>>> >>>>>>I believe that you do not need to prove the result in order to get a draw in >>>>>>every game. >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not expect it to happen in the near future but I believe that in 2050 every >>>>>>comp-comp game between top programs in chess is going to be finished in a draw. >>>>>> >>>>>>Uri >>>>> >>>>>well that are concrete bets. Maybe you're right, but I hope not. >>>> >>>>Percentage of draws between top grandmaters has always been on an increasing >>>>course. Nowadays 2 out of 3 games are ended in a draw. It is natural then, to >>>>predict that in 50 or 100 years something like 4 out of 5 games will end in a >>>>draw, and it could very well happen that in a little over a century almost all >>>>the games between top grandmasters end in a draw. But that will not mean that >>>>the game is solved, since the draw is the result of strength and knowledge of >>>>the two players, not because they *know* what to play to reach a draw. >>>> >>>>You can call a game "solved", if everyone can learn what to do in a short time, >>>>and will then, play the optimal moves forever (like tic-tac-toe). For computers, >>>>"solved" will mean that they have a database or heuristic to determine the >>>>optimal move at every position. For example, Shaeffer and his research group at >>>>the University of Alberta are close to "solving" the game of checkers, in form >>>>of having a database of win/lose/draw for every possible position. >>>> >>>>And according to this definition, the game of chess can NEVER EVER be solved. >>> >>>If programs always play the best move thanks to search and evaluation then >>>The result is the same as the result that they do it thanks to database. >>> >> >>Correct, but the problem is that a program can never play the best move without >>such a database! > >Sure it can, it can find the solution at runtime by search. > Yes, but here we are talking about a problem that cannot be solved by runtime search. With a branching factor of 4, in order to reach the depth of 40 plies alone, you have to search about 10^24 positions. If you have a processor with the speed of 100 trillion (100 million million) nodes per second (10^14 NPS), it will take 10^10 seconds, or more than 300 years...! >Why would it need to be stored in a file on disk for it to be solved? >My pocket calculator does not have table of all multiplications and additions >hardcoded in ROM, it simply has an algorithm to answer the question at runtime >:) > >-S. > >>>I am also not sure that the game can never be solved by some database. >>>There can be a rule for classes of positions and not for a single position so it >>>is possible to have database that may give a move for every position and the >>>size of the database may be smaller than the number of the possible positions. >>> >> >>But still the database will be extremely large. Let's say you come up with a >>database of _only_ 10^30 needed positions. Where will you store it?! >> >> >>>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.