Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:54:42 01/05/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 05, 2003 at 11:19:38, Sune Fischer wrote: >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 ;) My opinion is that progress in computer chess will not become harder in the near future(next 5 years) programs are not close to play perfect chess. I also do not expect programs to solve the problem of games so even when it will be almost impossible to make progress in computer ches then it will still be possible to make progress in other thinking games and the ideas of Ed may be productive to discover new ideas for other games. Uri > >-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.