Author: Jorge Pichard
Date: 14:58:28 06/02/03
**** Some thoughts about chess in general: Frederic Friedel once stated that he thinks there is a (possibly huge) rule that gives the best move for any chess position. I think this makes no sense for three reasons: 1) Apparently there is no such (perfect) rule for most 3- or 4-men-positions (else Nalimov would not have work), so it is very unlikely that there is such a rule for 64-men. 2) The decision about what is the best move is dependent on the opponent. Probably the beginning position in chess is a draw, so the only way to win is to make moves that make it difficult for the opponent to find the move that stays in a draw. (You can only win if your opponent makes a mistake.) Therefore with perfect chess knowledge, you could of course always draw, but not necessarily win against good players (because the engine does not put the opponent under pressure and plays aimless). This is already important in end games, for example the engine must not exchange its queen in a drawn KQ-KR but strive for positions that are difficult to handle for the opponent. Also, it is a known problem in the checkers program "Chinook". So, perfect chess knowledge does not solve the problem to make "active" moves that put the opponent under pressure. To win makes it necessary to know and take advantage of the specific weaknesses of the opponent. The current problem of chess programs is that they cannot do this, they do not know who their opponents are and cannot adapt to them (Deep Blue was adapted to Kasparov). Indeed, there is a tendency in today's computer chess to just wait for a mistake of the opponent and play passive. As we know, Kasparov always studies his opponent thoroughly before playing him - and he plays very active. 3) It is probably possible to prove that there is no such rule, using the mathematical theory of complexity. I presume that Frederic Friedel did not regard a table base as a rule. Of course if you had the 64-men-tables, this would also be a rule (a less complex one), but an impractical one as (1) there is not enough space to store this amount of data and (2) there is not enough time to generate the data. Hence, chess will be magic forever :-) __________________________________________________________________________________________ Stefan Zipproth, 2003-05-10
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.