Author: Peter Kappler
Date: 23:11:20 01/27/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 28, 2000 at 01:19:36, Len Eisner wrote: >On January 28, 2000 at 01:00:17, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>On January 28, 2000 at 00:41:49, Len Eisner wrote: >>[snip] >>>Let’s do a little thought experiment. Imagine a program that could search deep >>>enough to solve the game of chess. I know it’s not possible today, but just >>>imagine it. Now, if the deepest possible search solves the game, how can there >>>be diminishing returns for increased search depth? >> >>Because after a bit over 5000 plies, no additional plies have any value. There >>is a limit to the maximum possible moves in a chess game. >> >>Hence, there is *some* point beyond which additional plies have no value. >>That's because there aren't any > >I guess my point is this: if you believe a program can solve the game by >searching deep enough, the ELO curve will not totally flatten out until the >program finds a forced win. After that, it doesn’t matter. > >Len For what it's worth, I doubt that solving chess means finding a forced win for White. I think it's much more likely that the game is a forced draw. The drawing margin is just too high, in my opinion. --Peter
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.