that is, one player has a best strategy that, if played, the other could do nothing to prevent the outcome!
To clarify: I never meant to imply the outcome of a chess game is theoretically a certain victory (is that an oxymoron or what?). The value of chess could easily be 1/2 (a draw).
And like tic-tac-toe, the value of a game does not mean you cannot win, but it does mean one player can force a certain outcome (whatever that outcome is for that particular game) every time.
From the article:
"Chess is not mathematics," Kasparov told Wired magazine in February 1995. "Chess is fantasy. It's our human logic, not a game with a concrete result. Mathematically, it cannot be expired. The number of potential chess moves exceeds the number of atoms in the universe. It's a number beyond any possible calculation. Theoretically, it's unsolvable."
This simply isn't true. Chess is a strictly competative zero-sum game (what is good for me is bad for you and vice verse) with perfect information (there is a finite number of possible positions). Therefore, Chess has a value when using pure strategies - that is, one player has a best strategy that, if played, the other could do nothing to prevent the outcome! We just don't know what this value is... yet.
While this may be counter-intuitive, this was first put forth by E. Zermelo in 1913! But it requires rational players that consider all possible moves... something humans can't do but computers someday just might.
Dr. Walker of The University of Nottingham has a very interesting page on computerchess. On a general level he discusses techniques for chess computers. For anyone unfamiliar with gaming AI, I would recommend it as a good place to start.
But in the media hype and drama of the situation, we lose sight of the thousands of children that die each day from *preventable* dehydration and starvation.
Perhaps if they win this lawsuit, they could donate their ill-gotten gains to saving even just a few of these children that never even had a chance.
The RIAA isn't out to stop you or me from swapping songs. _Some_ trading doesn't dent their sales. Napster was around for quite a while before the lawsuit. The RIAA took notice when Napster became *the* way to get music. Other services haven't acquired the popularity and simpliciy to be worth sueing (yet).
The bottom line: The technologically savvy will always be able to get the music (or whatever) we want. I'll leave it to AOL users to buy the CD's. Besides, I'd rather listen to myself pee in a bucket (pitter patter pitter patter) before I pay 17 bucks for the 2 songs I like off a album. I better start drinking more beer just in case...
One of the best ways to have a program learn is a "neural network" - weighted relationships that can be changed to improve performace. As you traverse the decision tree, using this neural network allows for more dynamic decisions - if it worked last time, perhaps try it again. If not, try something else.
Graphics make a game fun look at... but good AI makes a game engaging. FPS games, like Quake and Unreal, succeed because in multiplayer mode, you are going against the best AI available - humans.
I take care to write only meaningful e-mails. And only when a phone call or voicemail won't suffice.
Don't CC/BCC people unless they *need* to be.
If it's important - call first, then briefly summarize via e-mail to prevent any confusion.
Ignore e-mail that is irrelivant
If I ignore something important, they'll call me or talk to me in person. Eventually they will learn to write better e-mail if they want me to read it.
Slashdot Mirror
To clarify: I never meant to imply the outcome of a chess game is theoretically a certain victory (is that an oxymoron or what?). The value of chess could easily be 1/2 (a draw).
And like tic-tac-toe, the value of a game does not mean you cannot win, but it does mean one player can force a certain outcome (whatever that outcome is for that particular game) every time.
Ha! I just patented 1-Click check sums... The rest of you will have to use the inferior "2-click" check sum...
"Chess is not mathematics," Kasparov told Wired magazine in February 1995. "Chess is fantasy. It's our human logic, not a game with a concrete result. Mathematically, it cannot be expired. The number of potential chess moves exceeds the number of atoms in the universe. It's a number beyond any possible calculation. Theoretically, it's unsolvable."
This simply isn't true. Chess is a strictly competative zero-sum game (what is good for me is bad for you and vice verse) with perfect information (there is a finite number of possible positions). Therefore, Chess has a value when using pure strategies - that is, one player has a best strategy that, if played, the other could do nothing to prevent the outcome! We just don't know what this value is... yet.
While this may be counter-intuitive, this was first put forth by E. Zermelo in 1913! But it requires rational players that consider all possible moves... something humans can't do but computers someday just might.
Dr. Walker of The University of Nottingham has a very interesting page on computerchess. On a general level he discusses techniques for chess computers. For anyone unfamiliar with gaming AI, I would recommend it as a good place to start.
Columbine was terrible.
But in the media hype and drama of the situation, we lose sight of the thousands of children that die each day from *preventable* dehydration and starvation.
Perhaps if they win this lawsuit, they could donate their ill-gotten gains to saving even just a few of these children that never even had a chance.
unless, of course, it *is* just about the money.
Used the open source chalk, that washes away in the rain
I just realized that's kind of catchy...
The RIAA isn't out to stop you or me from swapping songs. _Some_ trading doesn't dent their sales. Napster was around for quite a while before the lawsuit. The RIAA took notice when Napster became *the* way to get music. Other services haven't acquired the popularity and simpliciy to be worth sueing (yet).
The bottom line: The technologically savvy will always be able to get the music (or whatever) we want. I'll leave it to AOL users to buy the CD's. Besides, I'd rather listen to myself pee in a bucket (pitter patter pitter patter) before I pay 17 bucks for the 2 songs I like off a album. I better start drinking more beer just in case...
One of the best ways to have a program learn is a "neural network" - weighted relationships that can be changed to improve performace. As you traverse the decision tree, using this neural network allows for more dynamic decisions - if it worked last time, perhaps try it again. If not, try something else.
Graphics make a game fun look at... but good AI makes a game engaging. FPS games, like Quake and Unreal, succeed because in multiplayer mode, you are going against the best AI available - humans.