Author: Mike Hood
Date: 02:27:44 01/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2005 at 05:20:04, Günther Simon wrote: >On January 15, 2005 at 23:20:33, Madhavan wrote: > >No one here said chess can be solved practically, there >was just speculation if it could be solved theoretically. >Personally, I dont believe it, but who knows what is in >hundred years...it's really boring to see people annoyed >about something, which _might_ happen far beyond >their lifetimes. > > >>(A)chess cannot be solved,machine can ponder on about 4 million moves per >>second,but they are relatively too weak >>(B)even a strongest grandmaster makes a silly mistake in openings > >A has nothing to do with B... > > >>(A)if you consider chess can be solved,(B)then what is the probability that the top >>grandmaster can get a draw against "chess solvable" machine? >>(C)if grandmaster cannot get a single draw in a series of 5 games,then it is >>obvious that chess should be switched to fischer random chess > >Again A has nothing to do with C and B is of no interest for A and >vice versa... > >I wonder why all the trolls come out with this issue again? > >Guenther The original poster fails to see the difference between "theory" and "practice". It's a common mistake. "Is it possible to count the number of atoms that make up the Earth?" Theoretically Yes, because there's a finite number of atoms on our planet at any time, as long as we can agree on a definition of where the Earth ends and outer space begins. In practice No, because the number of atoms is extremely large and the count would have to be made instantaneously before any new material arrives from space.
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.