🚀 go-pugleaf

Don't forget, Garry Kasparov gave IBM a draw, where he had an actual ....

Sometimes, seeing is believing [incorrectly].

Siegfried & Roy proved to me long ago that I could be fooled [and loving
it]. You do raise an interesting thought though.

Tom Klem

"Henrik Gram" <henrikg@funcom.com> wrote in message
news:3b053901.375889430@news...
> anw@merlot.uucp (Dr A. N. Walker) wrote:
>
> > Summary:  if chess is to be solved, then realistically that
> >will happen if [implausibly] there is a forced mate in 30 or so from
> >the start that no-one has yet spotted, or [implausibly] there is a
> >complete theory [compare Nim -- but chess seems "chaotic"] which
> >no-one has yet spotted, or [only a little less implausibly] there is
> >some completely unforeseen technology that speeds our computations up
> >by factors of 10^30 and more.
>
> In many positions, we (as in humans) can tell if it's draw, won or
> lost, and that's not because we see all the moves to the end, but we
> 'can just see it' - you know the feeling.  We've learned some basic
> rules, seen lots of such positions and have learned to generalize over
> those to form new knowledge that we apply in positions that are
> different.  We learn what is important to look at, and discard the
> rest.
>
> If you teach a computer so it can do this, it would be a huge step in
> the direction of 'solving' the game.  A 'dumb' brute force approach
> isn't likely to succeed anytime soon as you and others have pointed
> out, but why do we need to be dumb about it?  Work smarter, not harder
> (shamelessly stolen from a workout-commercial ;-)
>
> -Henrik Gram
>