CThompson at suncor.com
Mon Oct 27 15:03:55 EST 1997
>Date: Mon, 27 Oct 1997 12:00:08 -0700
>From: "Mark Beeson" <mark at emerald.net>
>Subject: Re: [rc5] v3
>As a bit of a chess study, I find myself thinking that a distributed
>chess engine is actually quite a good idea. Deep Blue's advantage was
>not only speed, but that it had an enormous library of games that it had
>"played" against itself. Why can't distributed.net do this? We don't
>even need to schedule any games against any other players. Simply build
>up a database (albeit enormous one) of _all_possible_moves_. Yes, this
>is a huge number (perhaps larger than RC5-128?), but then again there
>are chunks of moves that we simply don't need to process (who really
>moves 1. a2-a4?). If we eliminate these trees, that's a lot of moves
>eliminated from our search.
Although this seems like a good idea, playing all possible chess games,
there simply isn't enough atoms in the universe to store all the
combinations or enough time left until the universe collapses.
Brute-forcing chess may be good for when you get down to seven or eight
pieces left on the board but it isn't practical when there are many more
than that left.
Personally, I don't think that distributed.net will be able to play
distributed chess very successfully. The I/O problems just seem
insurmountable. But I'd probably have said that about cracking rc5-56 a
few years back.
To unsubscribe, send email to majordomo at llamas.net with 'unsubscribe rc5' in the body.
More information about the rc5