Author: F. Huber
Date: 08:00:11 03/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 31, 2005 at 10:09:48, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On March 31, 2005 at 09:54:46, F. Huber wrote: > >>On March 31, 2005 at 09:39:52, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >> >>> Personally, I am not at all interested in how >>> fast a "normal" chess program does solve >>> a chess problem with mate in X but much more >>> interested in seeing the performance of an >>> engine in practical chess positions (positions >>> that can happen in a game). For chess problems >>> we can use the special programs. And so it does >>> not bother me if Shredder should need a lot of time >>> to find the solution in the given position :-) >>> Kurt >> >>Hello Kurt, >> >>"practical chess positions (positions that can happen in a game)"? >>Would you say, a position with mate in X can _not_ happen in a game? >>Have you really never _mated_ your opponent (or have been mated by him)? >> >>A quite strange opinion - IMO. ;-) >> >>Regards, >>Franz. > > Hello Franz > For your better understanding I should perhaps > have stated "realistic" and "unrealistic" > chess positions. > Regards > Kurt Hello Kurt, that won´t change anything - look at the #5 position in the posting at the start of this thread: is this "unrealistic"? Not at all IMO! And the same is true for lots of mate problems, although of course there exist also many mate puzzles, which are absolutely ´constructed´ and so (in your words) "unrealistic". But isn´t the _main_ goal of chess some ´mate in X´? So almost every won (or lost) game ends up in such a ´mate in X´ - and that´s absolutely "realistic"! :-) Regards, Franz.
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.