Author: Vasik Rajlich
Date: 03:13:00 05/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2005 at 03:39:06, Terry McCracken wrote: >On May 20, 2005 at 03:31:01, jefkaan wrote: > >>ok, this is a provocative hypothesis: >> >>with Moore's law, it might take only a few hundred >>years to solve chess. the winning lines start with 1.e4. >>the number of positions which have to be 'solved' >>are not so much as most people think, because of >>transpositions, and inferior lines. >>while there are anti-computer strategies, >>they will not work i the end because >>it is not perfect chess playing. >> >>if the above statement is not correct then >>chess is a draw and 1.c4 is a good opening. >> >>jef > >Chess is a draw, and we don't need to solve the game to give evidence for this. > >Most games with a single rook pawn extra is 99% of the time a draw. There is >plenty of antidotal evidence chess is a draw. > >If chess wasn't a draw there would be far more White wins, but alas there are >now far more draws, even in long time controls. > >Ever wonder why? Unfortunately this argument doesn't work. Go is a win for somebody, but both sides score rougly 50% given the right handicap. If chess is a win for white, then I'm pretty sure that white needs to play 1. e4 and then everything should be go-for-the-throat ultra-sharp. In practice this will often backfire. I don't think practical results really tell us anything. 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.