Author: Werner Kraft
Date: 11:49:35 05/23/05
Go up one level in this thread
I have choosen a very intuitive approach - I mean if you look at books about Lie groups / group theory - they are abit cryptic - to say the least. I want to come away from plies and trees - the human brain is good in pattern recognition, but very bad in precise calculations. The whole thing I have in mind is so fuzzy so far, that I would not bet a single cent on anything like " progress " - not to speak of an sulution. It is like an unskilled rock climber trieng a big , foggy mountain on a planet in a foreign galaxies - that means it is just a myth so far. I keep on researching - all dreamers , leisure mathematicians, hopeless fools : wellcome ! Everybody else - try to make a living !! On May 20, 2005 at 10:13:51, Dan Andersson wrote: > I have problems with seeing that associativity and inverse exist in the simple >scheme you proposed. Associativity breaks because two move orders do sometimes >result in different end positions (f.ex: different values for the 50 move rule >and the exittence of en passant). And sometimes different move orders are >illegal. > And moves that do not have an inverse are plentiful. > AFAIK seeing chess positions as a group can only work if we change the rules of >chess to 'chess. And then the problem would have to be to prove that the results >of 'chess have bearing in chess. It would probably be simple in special cases. > >MvH Dan Andersson
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.