Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!sun-barr!rutgers!mcdchg!ddsw1!zane From: zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM (Sameer Parekh) Newsgroups: comp.ai Subject: Re: Chess question Message-ID: <1991Mar23.023715.5082@ddsw1.MCS.COM> Date: 23 Mar 91 02:37:15 GMT References: <1991Mar18.045610.2977@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> <18585@milton.u.washington.edu> Organization: ddsw1.MCS.COM Contributor, Wheeling, IL Lines: 22 In article <18585@milton.u.washington.edu> forbis@milton.u.washington.edu (Gary Forbis) writes: >In article <1991Mar18.045610.2977@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu> cs225ju@ux1.cso.uiuc.edu) (Matt Pavlik ;) writes: >>The possible combinations are something like 10 ^ 120 for chess. > >I wonder if a better figure could be obtained by looking at average number >of moves from usual positions within a game raised to the average number of >moves in a game. It seem to me that by eliminating duplicate positions and >symetrical position the number of moves tested could be substantially reduced. >In fact, not every game must be considered but merely the ones whose positions >are forced mate for one side or the other or are unavoidably a draw. Would >every position be encountered in the course of playing what were considered >optimal games using a database of positions encountered within such games >which are forced mate? > >--gary forbis@u.washington.edu Interesting idea. . .would it be possible to have all the forced mate results computed and then to work backwards? (Even if processing power isn't within our current abilities.) -- The Ravings of the Insane Maniac Sameer Parekh -- zane@ddsw1.MCS.COM