Author: stuart taylor
Date: 12:12:20 10/13/01
Go up one level in this thread
On October 12, 2001 at 14:26:18, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 12, 2001 at 13:32:25, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On October 12, 2001 at 11:24:03, Daniel Clausen wrote: >> >>>Hi >>> >>>On October 12, 2001 at 10:23:07, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>> >>>[snip] >>> >>>>First try the Nolot test positions for 36 hours. Then report back with >>>>your "finding". :) >>> >>>And where exactly is the proof that the so-called solutions of these tests >>>really are the best? Or is it more like opening theory where the so-called >>>book moves just happen to be considered best/good by a large number of >>>people, whereas it's possible that white to move is lost from the beginning >>>(due to ZugZwang ;) and the best defense is a3? (maybe followed by h6! hee) >>> >>>Sargon >> >> >>Some of them are provably correct (almost all in fact). But they take >>far longer than 36 hours. >> >>If you really think 36 hours will solve _any_ problem, then you must think >>that computers are unbeatable at correspondence chess? They are _far_ from >>it in fact... > >I do not think that 36 hours are enough for every problem but beating a program >at correspondence game is not going to prove the question of the original poster >because he asked for as position that no program can solve and it is possible >that you can get against Fritz a position when only Tiger finds the right move >and you can get against Tiger a position when only Fritz finds the right move. > >Uri I really meant if there is no program (today) that could solve all the problems with this advantage. But if you know that 36 hours on 1.4 Athlon is no big deal for any program (that it does not always suffice for necesary depth of tactical vision), then that's basically my answer. S.Taylor
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.