Author: chandler yergin
Date: 18:43:18 01/12/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 12, 2005 at 21:09:11, Uri Blass wrote: >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! >>Some Programmers are DUMB TOO! > >If you think that they are dumb you are invited to write your chess program and >prove that you are smarter. > >They may play stupid move in some positions but the total result is that they >play better than almost all humans. In "SOME" Positions! Wanna refute that? Can't can ya? YOU know there are BUGS! SOME Positions they haven't a CLUE.. a Human can see in a secnd.. what takes them weeks.. months, or a Life time, and will NEVER Figure out! They may spin your Hard Drive til the end of time... and be just as DUMB Then as at the beginning! I didn't just get off the Turnip Truck! Who the Hell do you think you're kidding? > >Uri > >Uri
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.