Author: Duncan Roberts
Date: 09:03:08 01/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 24, 2005 at 11:53:38, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 22, 2005 at 14:59:49, Duncan Roberts wrote: > >>On January 21, 2005 at 22:50:08, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1558 >> >> >>I assume you know this. >>http://www.chessbase.com/newsdetail.asp?newsid=1563 >> >>btw you once said it may be possible to solve chess with 50 ? acres of hard >>drive. ? (possible one or 2 other caveats as well) > >It was 50,000 acres of a special crystal that will hold a terrabyte per square >centimeter. And I assumed that you could solve chess with the square root of >the number of possible positions in a perfectly ordered tree, but I think that >conjecture is faulty. It might require the square of that (so 50,000*50,000 >acres). this is new to me, why do you now consider you can no longer use the square root of the number of possible positions in a perfectly ordered tree ? duncan > >>I would like to get feedback from hyatt on this as he seems to require a few >>galaxies. would you be able to repeat the calculation, so Prof Hyatt can respond > >It was pretty much tongue-in-cheek, as we are probably talking about a trillion >dollar project there, even with the 50,000 acres. (On the plus side, the >material is an inexpensive crystal normally used for dosimeters). > >At any rate, whether chess will be solved or not is an open question. If >technological progress continues at its present rate, then it is inevitiable. >But is it going to do that? Nobody knows.
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.