Author: Ingo Lindam
Date: 07:26:42 11/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2002 at 10:05:25, Omid David wrote: >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...! As I understand the discussion, the question was not whether or whether not you can search within a tree having a branching factor of 4 (or more) to the depth of 40. The people that can imagine that chess might be solved one day as well as the people that just say it still isn't proven that you can't solve it just are able to imagine that there are ways to simplify a solution (not the problem)... in contrast to that you obviously can't imagine that there are methods to solve the problem without walking through all the nodes of that tree you discribe (or just estimate) again and again. If your argument is sufficient to prove "chess will never be solved" there would be a lot of proven mathematical facts that should be unprovable. There is no need of a database of all possible stages in the process of automatic generated proofs to be able to prove something. Ingo
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.