I see. Complete capitulation. God helps those who help themselves.
Will computers ever solve chess?
Sort:
is not fair play online chess
is not fair play online chess
Jun 3, 2017
0
#827
btickler wrote:
The largest prime number is 257,885,161-1, but calculating prime numbers and evaluating chess positions are two completely different animals. Comparing them would be like saying that because you can cook a 1 minute egg, you can compete with an Iron Chef.
A little matter of the power symbol is missing " ^ " as seen above. Upper Case 6 in case you are looking for it, as my typing is nearly invisible, which would be better as far as many folk are concerned.
Jun 3, 2017
0
#828
Your contention that the two computer tasks you name are different animals is true, but not completely. Both involve similar strategies if you have a closer look.
http://computer-go.org/pipermail/computer-go/2017-January/009793.html
adverts to it.
I will research further to try an even more convincing argument if possible.
Jun 3, 2017
0
#829
does not exactly improve my contention, but it is fascinating.
But, at least it gives an idea of whether a computer will EVER be able to physically ezpress the solution of Chess, although it could do so given "a little" more time and "a little" more space, like a lottle mega zillion zillion more.
Jun 3, 2017
0
#831
cumdumpjew wrote:
I do hope it is solved, then perhaps you can all move on to something a little more interesting, like counting all the atoms in the house. Or perhaps you'd like to get a machine to write out pi to more digits than the last one to do it. Or clean up after you take a 5h1t for once.
Oh, I already replied, I see.
I had to go somewhere.
Jun 3, 2017
0
#832
Can anyone reading this thread remember the book that described doing exactly this as a request to humanity, from an alien race?
Jun 3, 2017
0
#833
Excalibr4 wrote:
Or perhaps you'd like to get a machine to write out pi to more digits than the last one to do it.
Can anyone reading this thread remember the book that described doing exactly this as a request to humanity, from an alien race?
Never mind. This is an example of how the internet can make a 15 year old kid seem learned far beyond his years. All I had to do was enter "pi alien book" in Google.
s23bog wrote:
btickler wrote:
I see. Complete capitulation. God helps those who help themselves.
Capitulation? I just haven't bothered to engage. I expressed my opinion. You can do with it what you like.
Lol. I see...so when I express my opinion, you tell me I need to provide facts for both sides of the argument, but when you do it, I should just leave you alone. Got it. Double standard FTW.
cumdumpjew wrote:
I do hope it is solved, then perhaps you can all move on to something a little more interesting, like counting all the atoms in the house. Or perhaps you'd like to get a machine to write out pi to more digits than the last one to do it. Or clean up after you take a 5h1t for once.
You might as well enjoy what time you can before your username gets you banned...
Meanwhile, I guess you can keep reading the thread you claim to have no worth. Low self-esteem *and* double standards FTW.
camter wrote:
btickler wrote:
The largest prime number is 257,885,161-1, but calculating prime numbers and evaluating chess positions are two completely different animals. Comparing them would be like saying that because you can cook a 1 minute egg, you can compete with an Iron Chef.
A little matter of the power symbol is missing " ^ " as seen above. Upper Case 6 in case you are looking for it, as my typing is nearly invisible, which would be better as far as many folk are concerned.
The exponent shows correctly in V3 on my broswer. No need for the ^ if superscript is displaying as it should.
btickler wrote:
...conveniently dropping 40+ orders of magnitude on one side of the equation, and then just say it's unknowable on both sides of the equation"...
The 40+ orders of magnitude were dropped because it's not related to the work required to solve chess. It wasn't done for convenience.
vickalan wrote:
The 40+ orders of magnitude were dropped because it's not related to the work required to solve chess.
Ok, so you're just leaving reality completely behind now...I kind of expected better from such a chess variant aficionado. More structure and practicality, I guess?
Jun 4, 2017
0
#839
btickler wrote:
camter wrote:
btickler wrote:
The largest prime number is 257,885,161-1, but calculating prime numbers and evaluating chess positions are two completely different animals. Comparing them would be like saying that because you can cook a 1 minute egg, you can compete with an Iron Chef.
A little matter of the power symbol is missing " ^ " as seen above. Upper Case 6 in case you are looking for it, as my typing is nearly invisible, which would be better as far as many folk are concerned.
The exponent shows correctly in V3 on my broswer. No need for the ^ if superscript is displaying as it should.
OK, but it does not show in V3 correctly.
In the circumstances, seeing that you can see it as you entered it, and I cannot,, we are likely to be at odds in communicating.
So, I wish you well, but leave the conversation. Perhaps I should clear my cache, or read more videos on V3.
Until happier days arrive, I say
CHEERS!
Jun 4, 2017
0
#840
All this talk about "solving chess" revolves around the unspoken belief that chess is a draw. If there's a forced win in chess, the solution won't require mapping out every single possibility.
I firmly believe chess is a draw with best play. I don't think it's necessary to map out every single variation to prove that though. Within the next 20 years, the best programs on the planet will no longer be able to win against each other, even if they play 10,000 games in a row. We aren't there yet, but we're getting closer.
I have been with this thread for quite a bit of time. I still feel that the computing power is here on earth, but it is devoted to silly things like banking, defence, and search for extra terrestrial life.
You know ... silly stuff.
You can feel that way all you want to, just as long as you realize that all the facts say otherwise .
If you want to talk about facts, perhaps you'd care to take a stab at the number of operations performed by computing devices each and every day? Or how about some facts about the amount of storage space available on all computing devices in operation PLUS everything that has been produced, but is not yet in operation, or is no longer in operation?
Sure, let's talk facts, if you like, but try to keep facts balanced. Don't just provide facts that support your side of the argument ... like how big and complicated the problem is.
Lol. It's your job to provide those facts. You expect me to provide the cogent arguments for both sides?
Not really possible, because there's isn't a cogent argument for your side. Moore's Law, quantum computing, zettabytes of storage on earth...these all fall millions and billions and umpteen trillions of times short of addressing what would be required.
But go ahead, find some facts and toss them out. I assure you that you're going to get no closer than 40 orders of magnitude away from a solution,