Author: James Swafford
Date: 18:33:59 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 17:14:16, George Tsavdaris wrote: > >Stefan Zipproth wrote in http://www.zipproth.com/chess/tbs.htm : > >""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" >Is there an alternative to table bases? >Today's chess engines work by searching through all possible lines in a given >position. One could think that it may be possible to find a rule that simply >tells which move is the correct one, without having to search in the dark. >Unfortunately, this cannot be true for two reasons: > >A)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 32-men. > >B)As far as I know it is possible to prove that there is no such rule, using the >mathematical theory of complexity. >""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""" > >I don't think we can prove A) as the number of rules we can think is infinite. Doesn't matter. It's possible to prove something doesn't exist, even if that something would belong to an inifinitely large set. (i.e. "is the square root of two rational?") > >As for the more important B), although i don't know the proof of the above >theory he refers, i deeply believe that a rule that tells which move(s) is the >correct one, exists 100%. Also i don't believe we can prove that it is not >possible to prove that a rule for solving chess exists. > >So does anyone know if there is a proof or some information about the B) he >refers above? I believe such a rule does exist, because chess is a finite game (albeit one with a very large state space). I also believe we won't find it any time soon, if ever. So I guess that means (IMO), a proof that such a rule doesn't exist doesn't exist. :) -- James
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.