xshat wrote:There could be a perfect strategy, that is not regression, that is a possible future for when chess is solved. Until then it seems to be a balance of material and position.
How could there be a perfect strategy in a drawn or lost position against unknown opponents, including imperfect opponents? An opponent could be any opponent. In theory, an opponent could play any game (sequence of positions) in the 32TBs. There is no perfect strategy to cope with that. Remember that a "perfect" strategy (alongside 32TBs) may sometimes get a draw from a lost position (or a win from a drawn position), but sometimes it won't. What's to stop an opposing programmer noting where the strategy failed thereby improving his own imperfect program relative to the one with "perfect" strategy? The perfect strategy itself can't be improved; for how is it possible to improve on perfection? Unless it was never perfect in the first place.
A perfect strategy for a position guaranteed to win under the premise that chess has been solved and white always wins.
In drawn or losing position against unknown/imperfect opponents, there might not be. But there could, we just don't understand or haven't figured it out. That's really the main difference.
xshat wrote:There could be a perfect strategy, that is not regression, that is a possible future for when chess is solved. Until then it seems to be a balance of material and position.
How could there be a perfect strategy in a drawn or lost position against unknown opponents, including imperfect opponents? An opponent could be any opponent. In theory, an opponent could play any game (sequence of positions) in the 32TBs. There is no perfect strategy to cope with that. Remember that a "perfect" strategy (alongside 32TBs) may sometimes get a draw from a lost position (or a win from a drawn position), but sometimes it won't. What's to stop an opposing programmer noting where the strategy failed thereby improving his own imperfect program relative to the one with "perfect" strategy? The perfect strategy itself can't be improved; for how is it possible to improve on perfection? Unless it was never perfect in the first place.
A perfect strategy for a position guaranteed to win under the premise that chess has been solved and white always wins.
In drawn or losing position against unknown/imperfect opponents, there might not be. But there could, we just don't understand or haven't figured it out. That's really the main difference.
Finally, I take the "there might not be a perfect strategy" comment of xshat as "when chess is solved engines might not be clones of each other", that's as close as we can get to agreement.
Ovyron wrote:Finally, I take the "there might not be a perfect strategy" comment of xshat as "when chess is solved engines might not be clones of each other", that's as close as we can get to agreement.
