Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 13:04:35 05/20/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2005 at 06:13:00, Vasik Rajlich wrote: >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 Chess isn't go nor has it's nature, there without errors the game has always been drawn and it takes more than one error to force the win unless one side has blundered. Chess is a draw.
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.