Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:03:26 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 21:01:57, chandler yergin wrote: >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! You seem to be having some problem discussing using mathematics or logic. I am glad to see that you have finally reversed your position though.
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.