Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 08:42:38 09/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
On September 16, 2004 at 19:48:59, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 16, 2004 at 18:18:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On September 16, 2004 at 12:52:43, Dann Corbit wrote: >> >>>On September 16, 2004 at 07:37:01, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>> >>>>Your post is a good example of what happens when one jumps to a conclusion >>>>without taking the minimum amount of effort needed to understand what is really >>>>going on. >>> >>>I disagree completely, also with everyone else. >> >>Taking a _longer_ path to win is counter to a tactical test idea. Clearly the >>move given is bad, because it just extends the game and reaches the same >>position a second time where the _real_ solution has to be played. That is >>pointless... >> >>Otherwise a mate in 3 might turn into a mate in 40 if one side takes every >>opportunity to first repeat a second time before making progress... > >The pv shown by Arasan leads to a win. >If it lead to a draw or some other problem I would agree. You ask a student to add 2 + 2. He turns in the following: sqrt(100) / sqrt(25) + log10(100) and solves that and turns it in with his scratch paper. Do you give him credit? I do not. There are a zillion longer ways to do something, such as a tree search in chess. Tactical solutions are about the shortest way to win. IE if there is a mate in 8 and a mate in 10, the correct answer is the mate in 8. If there are two equal ways to win, then yes, either is correct. But to intentionally repeat a position makes no sense and I give it a "zero" as it is pointless... If you want to count it right, that's ok, but I disagree and I won't. Otherwise each WAC position probably has _multiple_ correct solutions...
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.