Author: James Swafford
Date: 20:19:24 02/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 16, 2004 at 22:43:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On February 16, 2004 at 21:33:59, James Swafford wrote: > >>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 > > >Actually it is note 1, of Einstein's Unified Field Theorem. > >:) Oh yes, of course, the "theory of everything" to the rescue again. :)
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.