Author: chandler yergin
Date: 15:38:28 01/13/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 13, 2005 at 03:30:48, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 13, 2005 at 02:03:42, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On January 13, 2005 at 01:35:44, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On January 13, 2005 at 00:50:00, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On January 12, 2005 at 22:07:58, Uri Blass wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 21:33:06, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 21:17:58, Uri Blass wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:58:47, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On January 12, 2005 at 20:55:42, Uri Blass 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. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>The problem is that the number of nodes in the full tree is bigger than the >>>>>>>>>number of positions because the same position can happen in many branches of the >>>>>>>>>tree. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Even with perfect order of moves you cannot solve KRB vs KR by alpha beta with >>>>>>>>>sqrt(2^30) nodes. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>>>Uri >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>I think you are on my side... >>>>>>>>;) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I disagree both with you and Dann. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>If you want to generate tablebases you cannot use sqrt like Dan suggest. >>>>>>>If you want to analyze possibility in games then sqrt is enough. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>In case that there are 10^120 games and 10^40 positions then chess can be solved >>>>>>>by sqrt(10^120) nodes or by 10^40 nodes >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>A NODE, IS a Position! Correct? >>>>> >>>>>Node is a position that is searched by the chess engine. >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>If there are 10^120 Games.. then 'every move' in those 10^120 games ARE >>>>>>Positions. >>>>> >>>>>Yes but not all of them are different so it is possible that there are only >>>>>10^40 different positions in a tree of 10^120 positions. >>>>> >>>>>There are too way to try to solve chess >>>>> >>>>>1)search(in this case you may search the same node in a lot of branches and you >>>>>search both 1.e4 e6 2.d4 d6 or 1.e4 d6 2.e4 e6 or 1.d4 e6 2.e4 d6 or 1.d4 d6 >>>>>2.e4 e6) >>>>> >>>>>In 4 plies you can get the same position 4 times and in 80 plies that are 40 >>>>>moves you may get it trillions of times in different branches of the tree. >>>>> >>>>>In tree alpha beta help to get sqrt of the number of games but it is not a good >>>>>idea to solve chess. >>>>> >>>>>2)tablebases that seems a better idea and the problem is that today there is not >>>>>enough memory. >>>>> >>>>>In this case you do not build a tree. >>>>> >>>>>you look at all the position first time and mark all the mates. >>>>>you look at all the position second time and mark all positions that you can get >>>>>mate in 1(position that is already marked) >>>>> >>>>>you look at all the position and mark all the positions that you cannot prevent >>>>>mate in 1(every move will need to position that is marked as mate in 1) >>>>> >>>>>There is no mate in 5000 because of the 50 move rule. >>>>>so after repeating this process 10,000 times you can continue stop it and every >>>>>position was searched only 10,000 times. >>>>> >>>>>This means that if the number of positions is 10^40 then time of searching >>>>>10^40*10,000 positions is going to be enough but you need also memory of 10^40 >>>>>positions and this is the another problem with using this solution today. >>>>> >>>>>I do not know if we will be able to use memory of 10^40 positions or search >>>>>10^44 nodes in the next 100 years but I cannot say that I am sure that it is >>>>>impossible. >>>>> >>>>>10^40 positions is only an estimate and I do not know the exact number of >>>>>positions. >>>>> >>>>>I remember that I proved that it is less than 10^50 and even less than 10^47 in >>>>>the past by a computer program that counted the number of possible positions for >>>>>every possible material configuration and part of the positions that I counted >>>>>are also illegal because both kings are in check so the estimate of 10^40 seems >>>>>to me a good estimate. >>>>> >>>>>Uri >>>> >>>> >>>>Argue with Dr. Hyatt, Dr. John Nunn & Frederick Freidel! >>>> >>>>THEY agree with ME! >>> >>>I need to hear from them that they agree with you. >> >>The Article is self-evident! R-E-A-D! >>Comprehend! >> >>You are suckin hind Tit here! > >I read the post of hyatt but I read nothing of Nunn. > >> >> >>> >>>It is possible that they have the opinion that chess will not be solved in the >>>next 100 years(I only said that I do not know) but I believe that they do not >>>claim that it is a proved fact. >> >>DR. John Nunn does the Math.. the fact you cannot comprehend it.. is 'your' >>problem. > >I have B.sc in mathematics and M.sc and doctor of philosophy in related >subjects. > >I certainly can understand mathematics but I saw no post of John nunn there. > >>> >>>I do not think that they agree that it is impossible to solve chess if you have >>>enough memory >>>to store 10^50 positions with distance to mate or conversion and machine that >>>can search 10^45 nodes per second. >>> >>>The question if this will be possible in the next 50 years or in the next 100 >>>years is an open question. >>> >>>Uri >> NO Question! Among those who know.. >>You, have a Biased Opinion and an agenda, and you are misleading people! > >No >I am not misleading people. >I say that we cannot know and that mathematics does not answer it. > >I say that you are misleading people when you say that we need to search 10^120 >to solve chess. > >Uri What do you call people that "Refuse" to accept the Evidence? etc. etc.. MWENTALLY DERANGED! I refuse to continue a debate with people that need "Professional Help" GET SOME! Delusional..Schizophenic. in self denial..with a Messianic Complex,
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.