Author: chandler yergin
Date: 18:01:57 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 20:57:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 20:55:04, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 20:45:47, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:32:35, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:30:56, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:26:56, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:19:48, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:04:27, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 19:56:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 19:37:29, Steve Maughan wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Dann, >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Things that seem impossible quickly become possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>I recon about 300 years before a computer will solve chess. This assumes >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>1) 10^120 possible positions >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>This is far, far too large. Chess positions have been encoded in 162 bits, >>>>>>>>>which puts an absolute upper limit at 10^58 (and it is probably much less than >>>>>>>>>that). >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>2) Alpha-beta cutting this down to 10^60 sensible positions >>>>>> >>>>>>The Question does NOT concern "sensible" positions.. It concerns ALL Possible >>>>>>positions! >>>>>>What don't you understand? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The incorrect first assumption renders this and all following assumtions as >>>>>>>>>moot. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>It's NOT an "assumption!" >>>>>>>>THAT, is YOUR error! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>YOUR Ass-umptions that follow are ludicrouos! >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Not only is it demonstrably and obviously incorrect, the proper result is well >>>>>>>known and has been known for decades. >>>>>> >>>>>>CRAP! Stop your biased Opinion and REFUTE my Statement! >>>>> >>>>>I have already done it. You simply don't understand it. >>>>> >>>>>> Furthermore, no advanced mathematics are >>>>>>>needed to grasp it. A simple junior high level understanding should be >>>>>>>sufficient. >>>>>> >>>>>>Yeah.. well PROVE IT! >>>>> >>>>>Already done >>>>>Q.E.D. >>>> >>>> >>>>You'd like to think so... >>>>NOT SO! >>> >>>I will explain it so that you will very easily understand. Consider the game of >>>tic-tac-toe. >>> >>>There are 255,168 TTT games, and yet (modulo symmetries) there are only 765 >>>possible achievable positions. >>> >>>If (for each of those positions) I know what move I should make (any best move >>>will do) then I have solved the game. With a table of the 765 answers, whatever >>>move you make, I will make my answer move. >>> >>>See: >>>http://www.btinternet.com/~se16/hgb/tictactoe.htm >>> >>>Hence, the number of possible chess games is totally irrelevant. The only thing >>>that matters is the number of possible chess positions. Once I have computed my >>>oracle, I will know what to do no matter what the board looks like. >>> >>>It does not matter how many ways there are to achieve a position. I only have >>>to know what to do once I get there. >>> >>>[Event "Edited game"] >>>[Site "DCORBIT64"] >>>[Date "2005.01.12"] >>>[Round "-"] >>>[White "-"] >>>[Black "-"] >>>[Result "*"] >>> >>>1. Nc3 Nc6 2. Nb1 Nb8 3. Nc3 Nc6 4. Nb1 Nb8 5. Nc3 Nc6 6. Nb1 Nb8 7. Nc3 >>>Nc6 8. e3 e6 >>>* >>> >>>[Event "Edited game"] >>>[Site "DCORBIT64"] >>>[Date "2005.01.12"] >>>[Round "-"] >>>[White "-"] >>>[Black "-"] >>>[Result "*"] >>> >>>1. Nc3 Nc6 2. e3 e6 >>>* >> >>You Dare comparing CHESS to Tic tac Toe? Or a LINE? > >I thought if I tried a simpler model you would understand it. Obviously, I gave >you WAY too much credit. > >>To Prove an Idiotic assumption? >>The Last resort of a Knave... >>Give it UP! >>you are Lost in Fantasy... and wishful thinking! > >The games are the same. Both are finite, zero sum games. Chess is just a bit >deeper. > >About the same step apart as chess to go. > >But Go will also be solved. Sorry! Idiotic Nonsense! I thought you had some sense... I reverse my position!
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.