Author: José Carlos
Date: 06:53:03 03/03/04
Go up one level in this thread
On March 03, 2004 at 05:57:02, Uri Blass wrote: >On March 03, 2004 at 02:08:27, Derek Paquette wrote: > >>I was reading over the x3d chess site the other day, looking at that horrible >>game 3 where DF8 didn't realize what trouble it was in, and even how to counter >>attack. >> >>The author of fritz said that they knew what the problem was, but just didn't >>know how to fix it, and i've heard this a lot from other chess programmers >> >>has the authors reached an empass? where the c++ language just can't provide >>the delicate logic that is needed? >> >> >>I mean is there a difference between a 4 cpu system, and an 8? if it doesn't >>know what to do, it won't matter how many cpu you throw on there? > >Or maybe if you throw enough cpu it may suddenly know what to do. > >I do not think that there is a problem with the c language. >I think that every problem that you know about can be fixed with the c++ >language and it is only a question of time. > >The only reason not to fix a problem is one of the following: >1)You do not know about the problem >2)You have not enough time to fix the problem > >A possible reason for 2 may be that is more important for you to do other things >like postin in CCC and not to fix the problem. > >Uri >Uri You're wrong here Uri. There "computable" and "non computable" problems for a Turing machine (like our computers are). Note that I don't know the words in english, so I directly translate from spanish. One typicial example: you must write a program to say, after feeded with a source code, if the execution will stop some time or will continue executing forever. There's no such program. The problem is non computable. José C.
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.