Author: Omid David
Date: 13:40:54 11/03/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 03, 2002 at 16:37:22, Ingo Lindam wrote: >On November 03, 2002 at 13:17:46, Omid David wrote: > >>There are two options to solve the game: >> >>1) real-time search: You believe it is possible in the future, I don't. We >>disagree in the speed limit. >> >>2) preprocessing and storing all possible position in database: We both agree >>that it is impossible due to lack of storage space. > >I would like to allow myself to disagree. I see atleast a third option to solve >a game like chess: > >first: >real-time search >to reach a position with the properties defined by either >A1, A2, A3,...,A(n-1) or An > >second: >real-time search >to reach a position with the properties defined by either >B1, ..., B(m-1) or Bm > >third: >real-time search to win the position > >assume you can proof that a position with the properties defined by either >A1, A2, A3,...,A(n-1) or An can be reached by (e.g) white within 20 moves > >assume you can proof that each of those position (e.g.) white can transform into >a position with the properties defined by either >B1, ..., B(m-1) or Bm >within another 20 moves > >assume you can proof that all these positions can be won within further 20 moves >(or atleast transformed into a TB ending that is won) > >Wouldn't that be sufficient to call the game solved? >(Although I don't expect us to reach it) > >Ingo You are correct. But our assumption is that there is no forced checkmate in 30, 40, or even 50 moves.
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.