Author: chandler yergin
Date: 18:05:32 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 21:03:26, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. Yes.. I used to have some respect for Programmers...
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.