Author: blass uri
Date: 09:17:26 08/14/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 14, 1999 at 01:25:50, KarinsDad wrote: >On August 13, 1999 at 21:28:53, Fernando Villegas wrote: > >>On August 13, 1999 at 17:02:20, Richard Sutherland wrote: >> >>>I notice that nothing has been posted to the Computer Chess Reports section in >>>months. Is this resource now dead? or just resting?. >> >>Hi: >>As ex coordinator and ex promotor and ex writer there, i would say that WCCR is >>in an state of vegetative life waiting the kiss of the fairy. The problem is: >>nobody wanted, want and perhaps will want to perform that rol. Everybody >>expected -well, maybe they did not expect a shit after all- to see there new >>articles from time to time, but nobody was prepared to expend some time writing >>one. I did a lot of interviews, etc, but that is not enough. The same with KK, >>but he retired to real life. Efforts to enage oher people were in vain. Actually >>WCCR is a monument to lack of interest of everybody here. Maybe they are right, >>maybe not. It is for you to decide. >>Fernando > >I don't agree. I think people have a lot of interest here. > >I think people have to decide where to put their efforts. > >Some people put them into their programs. > >Some people put them into tournaments. > >Very few people have the time to write an article. > >I wrote a white paper on compressing a random legal position into 20 bytes. >Unfortunately, I have not been successful on that. Until I am, that white paper >stays put (actually, I have basically convinced myself that it cannot be done, >so I doubt I will ever publish that paper). I believe it can be done I believe that it is possible to prove by a computer program that an upper limit to the number of legal position is smaller than 2^160 even after considering the number of moves without a capture and without a move of a pawn. I wrote a counting program and I can improve the program but I have more important things to do. My program needs a lot of minutes to prove an upper bound and the problem with finding a better bound is that the program may need more time to calculate it(many hours). It is practically impossible to calculate exact value of the number of legal positions because we need more than 1000000 years for it. I wrote articles about counting problems in the past and counting problems about chess are not considered by other people in university to be interesting counting problems so I am not going to write about it. It has also no value for chess programs because the time you need to calculate the representation of a legal position can be many hours. Uri
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.