Author: Mark Young
Date: 21:08:58 02/22/04
Go up one level in this thread
On February 22, 2004 at 14:11:32, Uri Blass wrote: >On February 22, 2004 at 13:43:23, Mark Young wrote: > >>On February 22, 2004 at 08:27:55, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>I am not talking about situation when we prove theretical result but about >>>situation when all comp-comp games at 120/40 time control between top programs >>>are drawn. >>> >>>My guess is that we need more than 20 years but less than 50 years to achieve >>>that target. >>> >>>What is your opinion? >> >>You are not even close....First you assume that all games will be drawn with >>perfect play. Then you downgrade the complexities of chess. It has a Massive >>tree. It will not be solved in 500 years or 1000 years...unless we find was of >>bending the laws of physics. > >I do not think that chess is going to be solved in the meaning of mathematical >proof but only in the meaning of having a draw in every game. This logic is wrong on many counts. Having a draw in many games does not mean chess is solved. Chess is pure mathematics. It can only be proved solved in a mathematical way. Chess is also very chaotic. Meaning it does not adhere to any rules of material, development, space, and time in every case. The only rule that has meaning to winning a game of chess is checkmate. So no search other then brute force will be able to solve the game of chess. > >Most of the games in the high level are drawn and it is the basis of my >assumption that it is probably a draw. > >Uri You maybe correct that chess is a draw, we have no way of knowing for sure.
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.