Author: Uri Blass
Date: 16:59:42 06/06/03
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2003 at 18:58:51, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Yes, but the life of GM's are limited. If GM's cannot practically beat the program in one year even when they are allowed to take back without a limit of the number of takeback except the practical limit(they cannot play infinite number of games in a year) then it means that the program is a very good program. I do not expect it to happen in the near future. I also do not agree that before that happens we have not a good chess engine. Uri
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.