Author: Don Dailey
Date: 12:11:46 01/27/99
Go up one level in this thread
On January 26, 1999 at 16:19:49, Dann Corbit wrote: >On January 26, 1999 at 16:07:45, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On January 26, 1999 at 15:46:20, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>You have an interesting point. I would like to propose a hypothesis that can be >>>easily tested. >>>1. Given enough time, all excellent chess programs will decide upon the same >>>best move (possibly infinite). >> >>Probably not true, but it's a fine hypothesis. In many cases I think they will >>tend toward a set of moves that is approximately sound. It might make sense >>that this set would shrink with time, but it doesn't have to shrink to one move. >> >>I would be happy to participate in similar experiments. >The only problem with hypothesis 1 is that it is *not* very testable. Which is >why I produced hypothesis 2, which is much more open to experimentation. Hypothesis 1 does not need to be tested. As worded it is false, but in principle it is true. If the programs are "correct" (which I'll define), and you define best move as a set of best moves then the hypothesis is correct. "Correct" means the program is constructed in such a way that it is guaranteed to eventually find the "best" move. Pure null move programs may fail this requirement. Probably even the hash table implementations of most or all programs will defeat this requirement, but this could be turned off. We are not considering time factors, any current program/machine combination may require trillions of years (or many orders of magnitude more to find the best move in some positions.) If the "best" move is interpreted to be ANY move that preserves a WIN if a win exists, or preserves a draw if a draw is the best one can achieve given best play, then the hypothesis is true. - Don
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.