Adrian wrote:
> ... I assume by your comment that you have set up a "straw man" that you are
> no longer asserting that a given position might be properly adjudged
> winnable or unwinnable in a properly designed solver depending upon whether
> it is treated as an original or is a derived position.
Oh, Adrian. Examine and criticize (and even get angry about) anything I
write, but please don't make assumptions. My original proposition is a straw
man if noone ever takes a position found by an errorless automated solver and
uses it as a starting position in the solver with its TT empty.
You've garbled my proposition because I stated it imprecisely, which allowed
you to do so. My fault. My proposition is indeed incorrect. But it has some
seeds of truth that need to be nurtured. Try this:
With enough resources, an errorless automated solver will make an accurate
decision (solvable, unsolvable) about any game. However, take some
intermediate position from a game, insert it into the solver as the starting
position, erase the TT. The solver's decision will be true for this starting
position, but this decision may not be dependable for the original deal.
Bill Raymond
Received on Wed Jul 03 2002 - 12:03:51 IDT