Author: Ingo Lindam
Date: 09:59:11 12/11/02
Go up one level in this thread
On December 11, 2002 at 12:55:16, Dann Corbit wrote: >On December 11, 2002 at 02:10:44, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 10, 2002 at 19:54:24, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On December 10, 2002 at 19:46:44, Uri Blass wrote: >>>[snip] >>>>I do not believe that it is possible to solve it with the hardware of today so >>>>I am not going to try. >>>>It is not a proof that it is impossible to solve it. >>> >>>Suppose that you claim a mate in n. In what way will you prove it? >>> >>>I will take an opponent position with a different result. You will have to >>>prove it is unreachable. >>> >>>There is no way to do that without solving the nodes of the tree. >>> >>>Consider some mate in n claim that you make. I show you a game between two >>>superGM's that follows a different path. You will have to prove that each of >>>the nodes is unreachable by an opponent. >>> >>>There is no way to do that without solving the nodes of the tree. >>> >>>It seems very clear to me. >> >>No >> >>For example for fortress positions it may be possible t prove no mate in n >> >>[D]7k/8/6KP/7P/7P/7P/4B2P/8 w - - 0 1 >> >>There is no mate in n for white > >Of course, this can be proven with a tree. I still don't see why 'it can be done with' should be the same as 'has to be done with' ingo
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.