Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:09:14 01/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2005 at 07:34:01, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. By the same logic you can say that maybe white does not win the following position and black has a defence or even a win that programs cannot search deep enough to see. [D]1nb1kbn1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w - - 0 1 > >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. What about the more obvious assumption that white does not lose. I think that there are things that we can say that we know inspite of the fact that we are unable to prove them. 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.