Author: Russell Reagan
Date: 16:49:47 05/16/04
Go up one level in this thread
On May 16, 2004 at 19:30:28, Marc Bourzutschky wrote: >"Game theoretically different positions" as in my original post is a precise >formulation of the question, since it is the number of starting positions that >have to be completely analyzed to get a full description of the game. I guess I've never heard this term used before. Is it a widely used term? Does "game theoretical position" always refer to the starting positions that must be analyzed to get a full description of the game? Google comes up with only a single webpage containing the term, and that webpage is about politics. I've heard of game theoretical results or values, which is the outcome with best play by both sides. In that context, "game theoretically different positions" doesn't make sense to me. In any case, if your definition of "game theoretically different positions" is "the number of starting positions that have to be completely analyzed to get a full description of the game", then I think your answer is wrong. If I fully analyze this position: [D]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w Then I don't need to analyze this position to get a full description of the game, since it would have been previously analyzed in a subtree from the position above: [D]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/NRBQKBNR w Or do I still misunderstand what you are asking? >How many >end up wins, draws, etc. after this analysis is not relevant. 8,294,400 is the >answer to the simpler question of the number of distinct combinatorial >possibilities. In fairness to Noam Elkies, he probably focused on the purely >combinatorial question, but in my post I quite explicitly did not...
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.