Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 05:25:31 01/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2005 at 08:09:14, Uri Blass wrote: >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. You want to say you *know* the above position to be a win for white, but why not simply say the truth? That you believe it to be a win even though you do not know it? Why the need to make a statement that is stronger than the one we are able to back up with the commensurate facts? > >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.