Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 01:40:25 01/27/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 25, 2005 at 17:07:15, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: >On January 25, 2005 at 17:03:42, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On January 25, 2005 at 16:53:03, Olaf Jenkner wrote: >> >>>> >>>> >>>>but to store a 32 piece tablebase would be a lot 'smaller'. >>>> >>>>might a 2.5 by 2.5 kilometre crystal do the trick ? >>>> >>>> >>>>duncan >>> >>>We have about 10^42 positions to store. >>>The third root is 10^14. >>>Take a 1000^3 km crystal. You must store 100000 positions >>>at one millimeter. 100 at one micrometer. Maybe, the crystal was too >>>big. >>> >>>Perhaps 99,999999% of the legal positions will never be >>>necessary to compute the tree. Than we can take a smaller cube. >> >>There is a huge difference between a 32 stone EGTB and calculating till the >>bitter end. >> >>What you refer to is having a say 10^30 hashtable and calculating say 10^31 in >>order to play perfect. >> >>It's very well possible that you can get optimal play (optimal defined as: >>"winning in case position is won, and drawing in case you can get a draw". Not >>as the optimal DTM which is major BS where majority doesn't care a shit about; a >>win is a win) long before searching 10^43. >> >>However please realize that storing 10^20 in hashtable means also that you will >>see certain positions within that 10^20 a million times. >> >>So the number of overwrites will be real huge from a single position. That means >>obviously that you keep researching the same tree over and over again in all >>kind of ways. >> >>It's unlikely you'll have a perfect move ordering and it's unlikely that you can >>optimal make profit from nullmove and hashtables. >> >>So there always will be this unsureness when that happens. >> >>What we do know from other games is that software even when playing near perfect >>still lost to mankind, despite that certain openings already had been solved >>simply to win/draw/loss. >> >>Now that losing or winning from mankind is not interesting in this case, but >>more interesting is that it indicates that despite nearly directly being in >>EGTBs they still didn't play perfect. >> >>If that will be the case in chess, we sure have a long way to go! >>Vincent > >Actually my personal guess is that when we have 20 men EGTBs that programs will >always win a won position and always draw a drawn position. > >You just go 1.d4 or 1.e4 (most likely 1.e4 is winning) and it's game over. > >Find me 1 GM who believes that in 100 years from now sicilian isn't a clear 1-0. > >Vincent > >>>OJe IMHO Sicilian is drawn somehow. Probably in some positional line like Accelerated Dragon. I bet quite a few main lines can be refuted though ... Vas
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.