Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:53:12 01/30/01
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2001 at 13:53:04, Olaf Jenkner wrote: >>You are the author of Gustav, correct? >>I take this from the Gambit-Soft page. >> >>From there I also deduce/guess that Gustav, >>at least in its normal operation, is not so much a mate prover, >>as a mate finder. >> >>I.e. in that one second Gustav did not prove that there is no >>shorter mate, or did it? >> >>Still, below 1 seconds is quite impressive. >> >>Heiner > >Yes, it's a mate finder, you can prove mates too, but >not faster then other programs. >To program a mate prover is boring for me, because there can not >much be done to save time. You have try ALL possible white moves. You can use mate or repetition or stalemate finder for black in order to prove that a move of white is not good so you do not have to try all possible white moves. >A mate finder can use heuristics to shorten the tree, and this >is a interesting work. A mate prover can also use heuristic to shorten the tree in most of the cases. > >There is a mate in 121 by Blathy where Gustav proved that there is >no solution in 120 moves. > >[D]r1b5/1pKp4/pP1P1p1p/P4p1B/3pn2p/1P1k4/1P6/5N1N w - - 1 0 > >OJe What is the solution and how did you prove that there is no shorter solution?
This page took 0.01 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.