Author: Uri Blass
Date: 08:12:11 01/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2005 at 10:59:10, James T. Walker wrote: >On January 18, 2005 at 10:47:42, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On January 18, 2005 at 08:17:27, Madhavan wrote: >> >>> >>>>>i deny that,strongest program running on a faster hardware should not get a draw >>>>>or lose in many games against super grandmasters,if it does then it is >>>>>considered as not solved >>>> >>>>Solution of chess only means that the solver will never lose a match. >>>>It does not mean not getting a draw or a loss. >>> >>> >>>then consider there are 5 grandmasters and 1 program playing in the tournament >>>that program is said to be "chess solvable",it does not lose to any of the >>>grandmasters but drew with 2 grandmaster >>>one of the grandmaster drew the machine but won all the game against other >>>grandmasters,then that grandmaster will be declared as event winner,but loses >>>few game in another event then what is your point? >> >>The point is that solving chess does not mean being able to win every >>tournament. >> >>Uri > > >Maybe not but if computers ever solve chess and I doubt it will happen, then >I'll bet no GM will be able to draw a game or else computers will be banned from >all tournaments. ( Or are they banned already?) >:-) If humans learn the perfect game and repeat it against the chess solver then the chess solver will not be able to score more than 50%. solving chess is not enough to win tournaments and you need not to be deterministic. 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.