Author: Shep
Date: 00:41:38 11/16/99
Go up one level in this thread
On November 15, 1999 at 15:28:21, Sven Reichard wrote: >On November 15, 1999 at 03:43:15, Shep wrote: > >>As a mathematician, I have to jump in here and correct you. :) >>You probably mean "statistically improbable". >>It is not _impossible_ to find the optimal CM settings (or to win the lottery a >>million successive times) because the number of settings is finite, so you could >>(given a large, but finite amount of time) try them all out and come up with the >>best one. >> >>Sorry to be nit-picking, but I felt that had to be said. :)) >> >>--- >>Shep > >As another mathematician, I have to jump in here and correct you :)) >If there were an algorithm that would give us a numerical playing strength of >any given engine, your approach would work (in a finite number of steps). >However, lacking such an algorithm, your optimization problem (on a discrete >space, to make things worse) is not well-defined. I stand corrected. :) Thank you. Ah, the good University times, "optimization problem on a discrete space" rings so many bells... Maybe some Lift & Project algorithm, Gomory Cuts or good old Branch & Bound? ;-) OK, enough of this. People are starting to get scared. :)) --- Shep
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.