Re: The Future of Chess and Getting It "Unstuck"

On May 12, 10:02 am, "Chess One" <OneCh...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> But isn't the [gigantic]  fly in the ointment the fact that parrallelism
to
> increase brute-force solutions is still a very questionable paradigm?
>
> After all, the comprehension of two 1600 players does not equal that of
a
> 2200 player.
>
> While there may be an increase in event horizon by quantitative analysis
> which may achieve some result, the 'fly' is that these are typically
> quantitative assessments based on materials won/lost, aso where is the
> qualitative one?

I mentioned what I did in hopes that maybe it can get connected to the
original issue.  Brute Force only gets you so far.  Brute Force isn't
judgment, it is evaluating everything.  Maybe somebody will come up
with something else.

I believe Brute Force would fail in a Heri****ian/Calvinball
environment against a player trained to be adaptive at strategy.  I
know a former coworker who ended up tra****ng Zillions at a bunch of
games (maybe the person was blowing smoke here).

- Rich