Author: Mike Hood
Date: 05:54:31 01/16/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 16, 2005 at 08:25:31, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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? > Knowledge vs. Belief? We're wandering into the domain of metaphysics now :)
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.