Article View: sci.logic
Article #404Re: "Solvability" in Chess
From: Frank Adams
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:56
Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:56
12 lines
1202 bytes
1202 bytes
In article <1992Sep25.014035.1269@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> ed@cbnewsl.cb.att.com (edward.m.hummel) writes: >I think this argument rest on the assumption that chess is a zero sum game. >How do you prove that? Suppose the value of an infinite game is less than >a draw for each player (but more than a loss), then neither player >would choose a draw *with best play*. As noted, this was intended to read "more than a draw for each player (but less than a win)". However, it is actually closer to correct as written: the value of an infinite game *is* less than a draw; not as specified by the rules, but in fact: no one wants to spend the rest of their life playing a single game of chess. This isn't *in* the rules for chess; it is *assumed* by them.
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<1992Sep28.155640.152096@Cookie.secapl.com>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!secapl!Cookie!frankReferences:
<1992Sep24.170907.26780@ugle.unit.no> <lc47bsINNohc@yoakum.cs.utexas.edu> <1992Sep25.014035.1269@cbnewsl.cb.att.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math,rec.games.chess Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!sparky!uunet!secapl!Cookie!frank From: frank@Cookie.secapl.com (Frank Adams) Subject: Re: "Solvability" in Chess Message-ID: <1992Sep28.155640.152096@Cookie.secapl.com> Date: Mon, 28 Sep 1992 15:56:40 GMT References: <1992Sep24.170907.26780@ugle.unit.no> <lc47bsINNohc@yoakum.cs.utexas.edu> <1992Sep25.014035.1269@cbnewsl.cb.att.com> Organization: Security APL, Inc. Lines: 12