Don Dailey wrote:
Can you dig out the textbook where you got this list from
Writing it down as if it were a formal definition was a joke, of course.
I have made up the list myself but it has strong reasons: It is the
essence of my study of theoretical informatics at university. Whichever
2009/5/22 Andrés Domínguez andres...@gmail.com:
2009/5/22 Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de:
Don Dailey wrote:
Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about?
IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6.
AFAIK the claimed solution is tengen the first move.
On Fri, May 22, 2009 at 2:53 AM, Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de wrote:
Don Dailey wrote:
7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly well.
When looking through sample game trees of small board computer play, my
impression was that by far too many trivial moves were
Don Dailey wrote:
Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about?
IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and
6x6. But I do not recall more details. Maybe I have not read all 5x5
papers about claimed solutions. If there is something with mathematical
proofs
2009/5/22 Robert Jasiek jas...@snafu.de:
Don Dailey wrote:
Is the 5x5 claim the one you are skeptical about?
IIRC, I am sceptical about both 5x5 (esp. first move not at tengen) and 6x6.
AFAIK the claimed solution is tengen the first move. Maybe you are
remebering some interesting lines that
Robert,
A proper search tree is a proof, but there is the issue of determining if
there are any flaws in the search and that would require some kind of peer
review including a code review. For instance the hash table
implementation may not be admissible unless the positions themselves are
Don Dailey wrote:
in my view it's probably correct although it cannot be trusted as an
absolute proof.
A practical computational problem is solved iff
a) the underlying theory is published,
b) the underlying theory is proven mathematically,
c) the algorithm is published,
d) the algorithm is
Robert,
Can you dig out the textbook where you got this list from and be more
precise about what they are trying to define?It's obvious that they are
providing some kind of formal framework for establishing the CREDIBILITY of
a claim of proof, not what a proof or solution really is.
For
I believe with CGOS rules, it is believed to be 9.0
I don't know if there is a proof of that, but I don't think there is any
dispute.
- Don
On Thu, May 21, 2009 at 4:29 PM, Michael Williams
michaelwilliam...@gmail.com wrote:
What was the consensus on 7x7 komi? It was discussed back during
Don Dailey wrote:
7x7 isn't solved by computer, but the best ones play it extrememly
well. Does anyone have any information on how well they play it?
My guess is that with 9.5 komi, a strong computer playing white won't
lose much to anyone (as it's starting from a dead won position.)
10 matches
Mail list logo
