Computer Chess Club Archives


Search

Terms

Messages

Subject: Re: "chess" cannot be solved

Author: Ricardo Gibert

Date: 06:19:03 01/16/05

Go up one level in this thread


On January 16, 2005 at 08:54:31, Mike Hood wrote:

>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 :)

Nothing metaphysical about it. He believes it to be a win, but does not know it,
because he cannot prove it. It's as simple as that.



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.