Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:58:51 06/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 05, 2003 at 22:05:56, Bob Durrett wrote: >On June 05, 2003 at 14:15:28, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On June 05, 2003 at 10:22:16, Bob Durrett wrote: >> >>> >>>When the top GMs cannot win against a chess engine even with an unlimited number >>>of takebacks, then you will have a good chess engine. Not until. >> >>Then the engine will have and must have solved the game of chess. If the number >>of takebacks is unlimited, then that is (mathematically) the only possibility. > >I do not see that as being a logical conclusion. Until it is known whether or >not there is a forced win for White, it will not be known whether or not the >game has been "solved." > >More importantly, the standard I proposed is based on current GM strengths. It >may be that some future human or machine may be able to play better and whip the >engine which cannot be beaten by today's GMs. > >Whatever. You said unlimited take backs. Unlimited is a synonym for infinite.
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.