Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 07:25:38 11/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2002 at 10:05:25, Omid David wrote: >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. Never say never, it cannot be solved by search _now_, but who can possibly imagine what kind of computational power we have in 5000 years? >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...! Well, 300 years is a long time, but still infinitely far from "never" :) -S. >>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.