Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:07:58 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 21:04:12, chandler yergin wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 20:54:45, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 20:51:59, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:49:35, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:29:32, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:21:29, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:02:33, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 19:54:14, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 19:27:05, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 19:11:12, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 19:04:31, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>So says Mark Twain.... >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>You Programmers are spreading lies, misinformation, & disinformation. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>However I should not attribute to Malice, what can be explained by Ignorance! >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>Computers will NEVER SOLVE CHESS! >>>>>>>>>>>Stop your Nonsense! >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>If man were meant to fly, he'd have wings. >>>>>>>>>>Man will never fly faster than sound. >>>>>>>>>>Man will never go to the moon. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>Things that seem impossible quickly become possible. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>In this particular case, it is even obvious mathematically how it will come >>>>>>>>>>about. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>If you understood Mathmatics, you wouldn't say that! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>It IS Obvious, that it's an Impossibility! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The Question of "whether or not God exists" is a Philosophical & Meataphysical >>>>>>>>>Question. >>>>>>>>>Would you agree? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Some say.. "It can't be Proven". >>>>>>>>>With a Philosophical Question, there are NO 'right or wrong' answers... >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>With Mathmatics, there ARE 'right & wrong' answers. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Your perception is in error! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>THINK! >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>"In a tree, from the Starting Position, there are 20 possible moves for white. >>>>>>>>>There are 20 * 20 = 400 possible moves for black, depending on what white does. >>>>>>>>>Then there are 400 * 20 = 8,000 for white. Then there are 8,000 * 20 = 160,000 >>>>>>>>>for black, and so on. If you were to fully develop the entire tree for all >>>>>>>>>possible chess moves, the total number of board positions is about >>>>>>>>>1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, >>>>>>>>>000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, >>>>>>>>>000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, >>>>>>>>>000,000,000,000, or 10^120, give or take a few. That's a very big number. For >>>>>>>>>example, there have only been 10^26 nanoseconds since the Big Bang. There are >>>>>>>>>thought to be only 10^75 atoms in the entire universe. When you consider that >>>>>>>>>the Milky Way galaxy contains billions of suns, and there are billions of >>>>>>>>>galaxies, you can see that that's a whole lot of atoms. That number is dwarfed >>>>>>>>>by the number of possible chess moves. Chess is a pretty intricate game!" >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>NOW, Do you want to "Disprove" this... >>>>>>>>>OR, >>>>>>>>>Re-think your position? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>HMMMMM? >>>>>>>>>Stop the Nonsense! >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>You do not have to calculate all the games. You only have to calculate all the >>>>>>>>positions. There are about 10^43 of them: >>>>>>>>http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chess.html >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>KD has encoded chess positions into 162 bits, which gives an absolute upper >>>>>>>>maximum on the number of board positions as: >>>>>>>>2^162 = 5846006549323611672814739330865132078623730171904 possible positions. >>>>>>>>(about 5.846e48) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>So, if we take that figure, then we would need a tree of sqrt(5.846e48) = >>>>>>>>2417851639229258349412352 positions (which is less than one mole of them) to >>>>>>>>store a complete solution tree. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>This was proven by Knuth in 1972. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>There are some other things that the programmer would have to track (hmc and >>>>>>>>3-way repeat, for instance) but that is trivial. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>My brother in law's father has a patent on a storage medium that will hold a >>>>>>>>terrabyte per square centimeter. So the storage for such a collection is >>>>>>>>already nearly possible. That would require 2417851639229 square centimeters, >>>>>>>>which is 241785163 square meters = 241 square kilometers. >>>>>>>>Since there are 230.4 acres per square kilometer, that means we would need a >>>>>>>>mere 55,430 acres of the stuff. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>If someone were to invest a few billion dollars, we could do it today. But we >>>>>>>>may as well wait 40 years, in which time it will cost a few pennies to do it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>NONSENSE! >>>>>>>You can put all 6 Billion people of the world in the State of Texas too... >>>>>>> and have room left over. So what? >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Mathmatically.. Chess, as I showed has 10^ 120th Power possible number of >>>>>>>moves... in an "Average Game!" >>>>>>>Increase that by a move or two, and the number of possible moves IS almost >>>>>>>"infinite" >>>>>> >>>>>>You do not have to solve the moves. You only need to know the best move from >>>>>>each position. >>>>> >>>>>YES! How do you know what the "Best MOVE" IS, untill you Brute Force them ALL! >>>>>?????????????? >>>> >>>>Eugene Nalimov's tablebase files contain perfect knowlege. Where did it come >>>>from? >>>> >>>>It may be possble to find the best move based upon first principles without >>>>brute force. In any case, it will soon be possible to solve chess. >>> >>>Ludicrous! ASS-Umption, NO evidence to even suggest this! >>>If you can't grasp the obvious.. which you don't, TOOOOOO Bad! >> >>How do you think computers play RIGHT NOW? Obviously, you do not know it, >>because they do not brute force anything all the way to the end. Rather, they >>play according to principles that have been programmed into the evaluation >>function. And they already play as well as the best humans on earth. > >Well, they DON'T! >They have NO intelligence, and in fact play DUMBER >than Beginners in some Positions! Where is the chess position where Shredder will play dumber than a beginner at 40 moves in 2 hours? >Some Programmers are DUMB TOO! No argument there. >>> Within ten >>>>years I think it will be practically solved (such that a human no longer has any >>>>chances against the best machine). >>> >>> >>>Crap! >>> >>>> >>>>>Now Stop your NONSENSE! >>>>>> >>>>>>>You, are convincing no one.. well maybe some, but certainly NOT ME! >>>>>> >>>>>>I do not expect to convince you. You aren't listening.
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.