Author: Madhavan
Date: 08:16:39 01/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2005 at 11:12:11, Uri Blass wrote: >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%. then what is "chess solver" then why is the term "chess solver" being given to the program? > >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.