| [ QuizWit ] in KIDS 글 쓴 이(By): kimsr (Pabochet) 날 짜 (Date): 2000년 11월 5일 일요일 오전 07시 40분 11초 제 목(Title): Re: 5x5 바둑 >i think the white player always has to win in chess assumping all the move is >optimized. (the rate of white winning is greater in professional chess. it is >just like go. one first move makes the big difference.) You are a brave young man. This is all I can say about this. >what i mean by the chess problem is solved is that, after IBM beated human >player, no one cares about chess anymore. (i am sure the interest in chess >algorithm dwindled in computer science. ^^ ) from the point of view of >algorithms, these kind of problem looks interesting. but from the >mathematical point of view, it is boring to solve chess problem completely. >give me 100000 IBM deep thought, i will solve chess problem for you. ^^ >there are only finite number of moves. whatever NP or NSPACE says if you add >more computers exponentially ^^ , the problem becomes mathematically >trivial. From mathematical point of view????? Actually, the interest didn't dwindle as you might think. Only for those artificial intelligence guys. We don't have exponential number of processors, so we cannotot know the answer in our lifetime. It is not a solved problem as you almost point out by mistake below. >the real challenge is that with limited computing resource, how to make the >most efficient algorithm. This is a mathematical challenge, not an engineering one, as you seem to think. A question nobody in this world has an answer to is: is there any algorithm to solve the chess problem with limited computation power? To answer this question, you have to find an algorithm, prove that it is correct, and prove that it uses small amount of computational power. To say you have solved the chess problem, you have to do it with limited computational power, because only then, we will know the answer in our lifetime. You said "Go is no harder than human genome project". Now you imply, from all we know, we have to use exponential number of processors to solve Go, while human genome project requires only infinitesimal fraction of the processors? In which way Go is only as hard as human genome??????? At least, answer the above question... >ps. why kimsr(?) steams like that? hmmmmmmm..... must have failed advanced >algorithm course. :) Actually I'm not pissed off like you think. Why should I be? I'm in the know. But, I'm sick of telling you where you are wrong. Please tell your advisor what you have said here (use the exact words). If you are bold enough.... :) ps. Oh! I didn't fail any algorithm course. These days, I can't, because I teach them. :) |