Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!amdcad!amdimage!prls!philabs!cmcl2!harvard!seismo!mcvax!ukc!dcl-cs!paisley!rh
From: rh@paisley.ac.uk (Robert Hamilton)
Newsgroups: net.games.chess
Subject: Re: Perfect Play?
Message-ID: <39@paisley.ac.uk>
Date: Fri, 14-Mar-86 05:46:24 EST
Article-I.D.: paisley.39
Posted: Fri Mar 14 05:46:24 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 22-Mar-86 03:49:16 EST
References: <2916@sunybcs.UUCP> <5112@alice.uUCp>
Reply-To: rh@cs.paisley.ac.uk (Robert Hamilton)
Organization: Paisley College of Technology Scotland.
Lines: 32

In article <5112@alice.uUCp> ark@alice.UUCP writes:
>>	IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE LOSER OF THE GAME TO ACTUALLY HAVE
>> ACQUIRED LOWER SCORE? IN OTHER WORD, IS IT POSSIBLE FOR THE LOSER TO HAVE
>> MADE FEWER DEVIATION FROM A PERFECT PLAY EVEN THOUGH HE LOST THE GAME??
>
The discussion makes little sense using the scoring method suggested
A bad (not perfect) MUST be given the score of BEST POSSIBLE POSITION
the player can now get through PERFECT play from this point.
SO if the loser makes only ONE non-perfect move which loses by force
hos score must be - infinity forthat move.

IN fact this brings an interesting point...
For the above scoring method to be valid the game tree MUST be FINITE
(taken from the first move)
Ie from an move 1 tere MUST be a forced win for white or a forced
draw for black.
The question : IS THERE ?
If there is not I think that chess might be considered non-deterministic
in the sense that the only analysis possible is heuristic.

PS We are fairly new on the news network.
Is anyone out there interested in some skittles by mail ?




-- 
UUCP:	...!seismo!mcvax!ukc!paisley!rh
DARPA:	rh%cs.paisley.ac.uk		| Post: Paisley College
JANET:	rh@uk.ac.paisley.cs		|	Department of Computing,
Phone:	+44 41 887 1241 Ext. 219	|	High St. Paisley.
					|	PA1 2BE