Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 19:16:19 11/16/02
Go up one level in this thread
On November 16, 2002 at 22:08:55, Christophe Theron wrote: >On November 16, 2002 at 22:00:27, Bob Durrett wrote: > >> >>I was thinking it might be *fun* to create a machine which does nothing more >>than create legal move sequences from some preset legal chess position. These >>sequences might be dumped into a large part of RAM for later copy to a hard disk >>or printout. >> >>The key idea I'm toying with is to represent a chess position by a listing of >>legal moves. Whenever a new move is made [by the person (or thing) playing >>against the machine, or by the machine if it's playing against itself,] then the >>machine would do nothing more than modify that listing (plus copy the move >>representation to a temporary storage place in RAM). The new listing of legal >>moves would then represent the new position. The key idea is to represent a >>position by a listing of legal moves. When a move is made, there is a "from" >>square and a "to" square. Only consequences of changes made on these two >>squares would have to be considered to modify the legal move list. >> >>Then, to make it more interesting, a really fast random number generator would >>be used to select one of the resulting legal moves. If the machine were playing >>against itself, the sequences of moves should be generated very quickly. How >>quickly? >> >>In the beginning, I am only interested in the time it would take to modify that >>listing. The machine could play both sides, removing the need for >>time-consuming input/output. After generating a legal move sequence ending in >>mate, it would then start working on the next legal move sequence. After a >>million or so moves were made, then the time required could be divided by the >>number of moves. That resulting time per move that I'm asking about. Rather >>than worry about the fact that some computers are faster than others, maybe the >>best bet would be to express it as number of clock cycles per move. A modern >>high-end processor should be assumed. >> >>Each sequence would be what two "really dumb" chessplayers would produce if they >>knew how to produce legal moves but knew NOTHING at all else about chess. >> >>P.S. Is there a better way? >> >>Bob D. > > > >Don't you need to prove first that two different chess positions will always >have a different legal moves list? Does that really matter????? >And that there exist no move list that could >be associated with two different chess positions? Same question. I really don't see how the product of the machine [i.e. the move sequences] would be any different if: (a) two "different" positions had the same move list, and (b) there was a move list that corresponded to two different chess positions. This is because of the way the lists are generated. I see no need to establish the 1:1 correspondence you are suggesting. Would you mind taking a stab at giving a proof that it would matter? Bob D. > > > > Christophe
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.