Warning: Declaration of MyAuthPlugin::initUser(&$user) should be compatible with AuthPlugin::initUser(&$user, $autocreate = false) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php on line 37
Warning: session_name(): Cannot change session name when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Setup.php on line 222
Warning: session_set_cookie_params(): Cannot change session cookie parameters when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2446
Warning: session_cache_limiter(): Cannot change cache limiter when session is active in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/GlobalFunctions.php on line 2451
Warning: Parameter 1 to MediaWiki_TIGAutoAuthenticate() expected to be a reference, value given in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Hooks.php on line 117
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/Feed.php on line 125
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10
Warning: Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/extensions/DDNAuthPlugin.php:4) in /home/tig/www/aalf/www/wiki/includes/WebResponse.php on line 10 StocksDressler141 - Revision history
http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=StocksDressler141&action=history
Revision history for this page on the wikienMediaWiki 1.13.3Wed, 04 Nov 2026 16:46:14 GMTStocksDressler141: New page: If all know-how about chess may be accumulated and unified in a theory... how exciting is always that? Everyone would like to are aware that "final" theory. And, with all the having that k...
http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=StocksDressler141&diff=53023&oldid=prev
<p>New page: If all know-how about chess may be accumulated and unified in a theory... how exciting is always that? Everyone would like to are aware that "final" theory. And, with all the having that k...</p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>If all know-how about chess may be accumulated and unified in a theory... how exciting is always that? Everyone would like to are aware that "final" theory. And, with all the having that knowledge, beat everybody in chess. Who could beat you? You have the final theory in the end.<br />
<br />
Unhealthy news: currently, no such theory exists. It really is doubtful there ever will be. However, there is one book authored by Gary Danelishen whose book title suggests itself: "The Final Theory of Chess". The ebook discusses exactly a possible solution to this problem. What is the response to that seemingly eternally evasive question, "What is the foremost relocate the world?"<br />
<br />
But is there really such a thing as the best move around in the entire world? I doubt it. To begin with, now you ask , simply too broad. There needs to be another condition that could restrict this broadness to some extent of specificity. This can be achieved by stating the question this way: "What is the best move around in this location?" Here, we added a brand new parameter--by being more specific (i.e. "in this position"), we added a new dimension in which we could measure another.<br />
<br />
We often operate in linear [http://www.ajedrezvip.com ajedrez] reasoning: "If such a thing happens, then you do." Unfortunately, if it is the reasoning through which you work out an issue, even a mathematical problem as well, then, should you be asked a fix, you will only reach your goals in concluding the reply to now you ask infinity. "If such a thing happens, then you do. If that takes place, then that one happens, then that, then that..." ad infinitum.<br />
<br />
So what exactly is a very important thing to complete? Add another parameter. Before asking, "What is the better relocate it?" ask, "What position should i desire to achieve?" Put simply, answer the question backwards.<br />
<br />
"This may be the position I want to achieve, i really go for this move." By being aware what to complete, one is prone to go in that direction. This logic may give an impression of vagueness to the mathematically exacting, but this can be a wrong impression. The truth is, it even provides decision-maker feeling of concreteness. By providing an obvious goal, one can possibly calculate a finite sequence of moves, even if the chess player's assessment from the position rests on subjective judgment.<br />
<br />
Base knowledge takes precedence over calculation. One cannot calculate without knowing the variables. One cannot calculate something he doesn't know. The place that the subject of information is involved, this simple truth is evident. One clear proof this fact is this: the strongest players don't rely on pure calculation. The current world chess champion, [http://www.ajedrezvip.com ajedrez en linea] Viswanathan Anand, is really an "intuitive" rather than "calculating" player. And are also a great deal of chess legends of all time and also other quite strong modern chess players.<br />
<br />
Just what exactly creates this change all say? In the book, Danelishen writes,<br />
<br />
The last Theory of Chess is an try and lay a good foundation where further analysis may be built-in order to succeed in the 1st goal of a partial strategy to the overall game of chess. Between mid 2004 and 2008, daily computer analysis was conducted along with the Final Theory of Chess slowly was written. During this time period, a network of six computers running the Fritz group of computer chess programs continuously calculated night and day. Each previous round of analysis laid a foundation where future analysis was conducted..."<br />
<br />
However, this may take a long time. The method is way too slow (in accordance with human lifespan). Why?<br />
<br />
Well, principle assumptions are:<br />
<br />
1. Through the board position, there are 40 legal progresses average; <br />
2. A game title of chess takes about 30 half-moves (60 plys or 60 "half-moves") normally.<br />
<br />
Therefore around 40^60 (40 to the 60th power or 40 multiplied 60 times on its own), which is about 10^96 possible ending positions that your computer must check.<br />
<br />
When the computer is capable of evaluating 10^18 ending positions another (current computers aren't even near being effective at that), then 10^96 positions divided by 10^18 positions another will be 10^78 seconds, or roughly 10^70 years.<br />
<br />
To obtain the "final" theory of chess by finding the means to fix all chess positions (in mathematics, this is called "brute-force calculation") is a practical impossibility. I deem it more [http://www.ajedrezvip.com jugar ajedrez] tenable to support that "the final theory of chess is that this: there isn't any such thing as final theory of chess." Why? As the "final" theory that could explain away chess couldn't survive a theory all things considered but an objective truth.</div>Fri, 13 Apr 2012 18:30:27 GMTStocksDressler141http://www.aalf.org/wiki/index.php?title=Talk:StocksDressler141