Author: David Dahlem
Date: 17:57:43 02/02/01
Go up one level in this thread
On February 02, 2001 at 20:25:11, James T. Walker wrote: >On February 02, 2001 at 18:03:09, David Dahlem wrote: > >> >>On February 02, 2001 at 15:42:22, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: >> >>>On February 02, 2001 at 14:37:29, David Dahlem wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>On February 02, 2001 at 10:16:34, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: >>>> >>>>>On February 02, 2001 at 08:14:03, David Dahlem wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>On February 02, 2001 at 07:53:30, Hermano Ecuadoriano wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>On February 02, 2001 at 03:19:14, Timothy J. Frohlick wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>On February 02, 2001 at 01:28:59, Jouni Uski wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>[D]8/6kn/3B3p/5K1B/8/8/8/8 b - - >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>resign 1-0! Why? Is this really white's win? >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>JouniDate: 1/2/2001 >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Jouni, >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>Gambit Tiger without tablebases solves this as a mate in 46 in 26 minutes on a >>>>>>>>PII 333 with 48 Megs Hash. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>1... Ng5 2. Bc5 Nf7 3. Bd4+ Kf8 4. Kf6 Ng5 5. Bc5+ Kg8 6. Kf5 Nf7 7. Be7 Ng5 8. >>>>>>>>Bb4 Nf7 9. Kg6 Ne5+ 10. Kf6 Nd7+ 11. Ke7 Ne5 12. Bc3 Nc6+ 13. Ke8 Kh7 14. Kf7 >>>>>>>>Ne5+ 15. Kf6 Nc6 16. Bf3 Nd8 17. Bb4 h5 18. Be4+ Kh8 19. Be7 Nc6 20. Bxc6 Kh7 >>>>>>>>21. Be4+ Kg8 22. Kg6 Kh8 23. Bd5 h4 24. Bf6# >>>>>>> >>>>>>>I can't come anywhere close to duplicating this. In fact, I can play forward all >>>>>>>the way to the position after 15. Kf6, and it still takes 6 minutes to >>>>>>>find a mate. And then, it isn't nine more moves, as your solution suggests. >>>>>>>It says mate in 16. That would be a total of 61 plies from the initial position. >>>>>>>That's a bit of a stretch, even for Gambit Tiger. >>>>>>>Maybe I've done something wrong. I hope someone else will try this. >>>>>>> >>>>>>I'm not really sure if 2.Nf7 is black's best choice. I did some infinite >>>>>>analysis with Fritz 6 and Nimzo 8. They both like 2....Nh3 and stayed there for >>>>>>at least 10 minutes. >>>>> >>>>>This isn't about just GOOD moves: I think Timothy J. Frohlick posted that >>>>>Gambit Tiger found a FORCED MATE in 24 as given above, without TBs of >>>>>course. My Gambit Tiger comes NOWHERE CLOSE, and I am very curious whether >>>>>or not one of us has made a mistake. (I have other reasons for thinking that >>>>>I might be doing something wrong, and I'm on the lookout.) >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>Dave >>>> >>>>Maybe i'm just dumb but how can there be a FORCED mate if black has better >>>>alternative moves?? >>>> >>>>Dave >>> >>>The question was about some analysis that appeared to show a proven mate in >>>24 moves. To challenge that with a different program, it is not enough to show >>>that it likes a different move for some minutes. You would have to show that >>>Fritz had proven that its move avoids mate for AT LEAST 24+ moves. Then we >>>would know that the first analysis was wrong. I didn't think you were claiming >>>that. (Were you?) Thus, I thought that Fritz's opinion was irrelevant to the >>>issue at hand. >>> >>>There is an important misunderstanding about these mate announcements from >>>the TB equipped programs. >> >>What i was trying to say was that the above posted line by Tim, in my opinion, >>only shows that white can win, not a forced mate in 24. I thought to prove a >>forced mate, a program has to see it from the root position. >> >>Dave > >Using Tim's method you can prove that white has a "forced" mate from the >starting position. Do you really believe that? Of course his method is faulty >and proves nothing. >Jim Quite right !! How bout that? Somebody agrees with me. :-) Dave
This page took 0 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.