Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 07:42:23 04/17/03
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 2003 at 20:22:26, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On April 16, 2003 at 20:01:19, J. Wesley Cleveland wrote: > >>On April 16, 2003 at 14:30:03, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >> >>>No you can't. You _always_ have to search every move at the root. that is the >>>_only_ node where you can make that statement. >> >>ob_nitpick: If the position is mate in 1, then you only need to search the >>mating move. > > >I already pointed this out. In fact, this is true for any odd depth ending in >mate as per Knuth/Moore. RH wants to dismiss this as uncommon, while avoiding >admitting the statement, "You _always_ have to search every move at the root" is >false. OK. In a normal game, in 99.999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of the positions, you have to search _all_ moves at the root. Is that better? I just looked at 200 games with GM players vs Crafty. Not a _single_ game ended with mate in 1 by Crafty. The GM resigned when he saw a mate coming. I don't _care_ about non-root positions, because if you notice, the discussion was about splitting the parallel search at the _root_. Everybody splits below the root so that's moot. But at the root, it isn't. And I would call 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% close enough to 100% to say "all root positions". It is _far_ more likely to find a position with only one legal move at the root, but then the discussion is moot again because there is no opportunity to split at the root. I'm not sure why the "nit-pick" is so very important...
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.