Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 04:34:01 01/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2005 at 05:29:36, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 16, 2005 at 03:16:27, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>To solve a game is to prove the result with best play for both sides. It's a >>term with precise meaning. > >What if there is no formal proof of the result with perfect play but every game >between top programs ends in a draw? It probably means that if a win exists, they cannot search deeply enough to find it. What else could it mean? I don't like the idea of trying to understand a problem with fanciful probabilies like this. It can be misleading. I used to think that calling chess a likely draw was a reasonable thing to say, but I've learned the hard way that the really right answer is to simply say we do not know. As for whether we can solve chess, consider the following link where something that I did not think was possible turns out to be relatively easy: http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050101/mathtrek.asp Pretty amazing. In the traveling salesman problem, if optimal solutions can be found to such difficult combinatorial problems, why not chess too? It might not be as far off as we like to think. > >I think that this type of situation can happen for games and at that point >the solution has no practical value > >For example consider the following position > >[D]5rk1/5ppp/8/8/8/8/5PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1 > >I do not expect it to be proved as a draw in the near future but I also will be >surprised if games between top programs at 120/40 time control will end not in a >draw. > >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.