Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: Advances in computer chess/science (OT)

Author: Sune Fischer

Date: 08:19:38 01/05/03

Go up one level in this thread


On January 05, 2003 at 10:57:17, Rafael Andrist wrote:

>On January 05, 2003 at 10:43:54, Sune Fischer wrote:
>
>>On January 05, 2003 at 09:42:37, Alessandro Damiani wrote:
>>
>>>Physics is all about approximation. Nothing more, nothing less.
>>
>>Nonsense.
>
>Of course it is. All theories so far have been approximations and even for the
>simplest problems one makes allways several assumptions and approximations.

For problem solving you make simplifying assumptions or else you can't solve the
equations, but don't blame the theories for that.

>But I think that comparing Chess to Physics is a bad idea.

I think so too.

>Chess is well defined
>and it is theoreticaly solvable (only finite number of positions). It is more
>similar to Maths resp. to algebraic structures - this depends of course from the
>point of view: focussing on the positions or on search trees.

I think the discussion was more about advanced fields and whether progress
becomes harder or not, physics was just an abstract comparision.

Anyway, we may have drifted a tad off topic here ;)

-S.
>Rafael B. Andrist



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.