Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 18:21:34 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 21:18:22, chandler yergin wrote: >On January 12, 2005 at 21:13:08, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 12, 2005 at 21:09:16, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>On January 12, 2005 at 21:02:01, Dann Corbit wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:57:40, chandler yergin wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:33:25, Dann Corbit wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:25:24, Uri Blass 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 incorrect first assumption renders this and all following assumtions as >>>>>>>>moot. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>The second assumption is also not correct. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>By the same logic alphabeta can cut less than 2^30 positions in KRB vs KR to >>>>>>>2^15 positions but it does not happen and solving some KRB vs KR position with >>>>>>>no KRB vs KR tablebases is not something that you need 2^15 nodes for it. >>>>>> >>>>>>No. The second assumption would be true if the first was true. This was >>>>>>formally PROVEN by Donald Knuth. In a perfectly ordered alpha-beta solution >>>>>>tree, the number of nodes is proportional to the square root of the nodes in the >>>>>>full tree. >>>>>> >>>>>>If there were 10^120 in the full tree, then about 10^60 would be in the solution >>>>>>tree. >>>>>> >>>>>>It can be less than that. >>>>> >>>>>It "Can't be LESS than that! >>>>> >>>>> But it cannot be more. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>It Certainly CAN! >>>>> >>>>>In any TREE.. the TREE ONLY represents "What HAS Been PLayed." >>>>>REFUTE THAT! >>>> >>>>You do not have to solve every game. Only every position. Look at the two >>>>chess games that I posted. The end position for both was identical. In fact, >>>>despite the many moves, there are only a very few positions that are distinct. >>>>For each of those positions, if you know the best move, you do not care how you >>>>got there. >>>> >>> >>>How do you now the "Best Move" until you have calculated them ALL? >> >>The miracle of alpha beta is that it allows you to prune away huge chunks of the >>tree and get EXACTLY the SAME answer you would get if you examined every single >>leaf. >> >>>Hmmm? >> >>Read a paper on alpha-beta and you will find the answer. > >Still doesn't come CLOSE to 10^ 120th Power for Solving ANYTHING! >Also.. there are positions for "Underpromotion" which you don't take into >account. Underpromotion is also completely irrelevant. Each of the possible outcomes of promotion is simply a new position. Those positions have already been counted in the set of 10^43 distinct positions. So you see, underpromotion does not even complicate things at all. >That's WHY 7 man EGTB'S will NOT jump the ELO Rating... That has more to do with disk access time. But I expect that judicious use of the data will increase Elo ratings. >They, can't even be solved yet.. and NOT in your lifetime either.. will they.. >or for future generations to come. >STOP! The NONSENSE!
This page took 0.02 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.