Author: James T. Walker
Date: 06:45:32 05/21/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 20, 2005 at 20:45:45, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On May 20, 2005 at 20:38:44, Komputer Korner wrote:
>
>>Bob Hyatt has said that he has seen Crafty hitting the endgame tablebases with
>>16 pieces left on the board. That begs a question. If Chess is solved ( a big IF
>>)it will be from from a combination of EG tablebases and opening preactice.
>>However which technique will be the major contributor? Most computer chess
>>resources are put on the openings but it may be the tablebases which will
>>provide the most value in the end? How many 6 man tablebases have been solved by
>>now? I have been out of touch.
>
>For chess to be solved the result will have to be proven.
>
>Hitting the tablebase files with lots of chessmen still on the board can happen
>because of long combinations which quiesce or end in the pv with 5-6 chessmen
>left. But a long sequence of quiet moves may be better play.
>
>In order for the opening books to be used for the solution of chess, they would
>have to be proven as perfect play. That is a long way from happening.
>
>I think a more realistic question is: "Will chess be pragmatically solved?"
>(rather than mathematically solved.)
>
>So will we reach a point where [for all intents and purposes against any
>opponent including a stupendous computer opponent] the computer never makes a
>mistake of any kind.
>
>Such a system might play perfect chess. But we would not be able to know it.
I don't think so. ("perfect chess") Just being unbeatable should not be
defined as perfect chess. In my opinion, the only way to play perfect chess is
to solve the game so that when anyone plays 1.e4 , the "perfect chess" player
announces mate in 73.
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.