Author: blass uri
Date: 13:49:59 05/13/00
Go up one level in this thread
On May 13, 2000 at 16:30:27, Robert Hyatt wrote: >>I understood that the idea behind chest is that it has not to try all the ply=1 >>moves to find that there is no mate in 2(it is obvious for mate in 1 when you >>need to generate only threat king moves but I understood that it is also >>possible to do it for mate in 2). >> >>Chest knows for every piece the squares that it controls so it knows the squares >>need to be controled in order to do mate. >> >>If it is obvious from the starting position of the pieces that they cannot >>control the relevant squares in 2 moves then you can discover that there is no >>mate in 2 without generating moves. >> >>Uri > > >what about zugzwang??? chest proves that there is a no mate without really executing the moves and it does not do errors in zugzwang positions. I understand that it does not assume no move for the defender but assumes a simple strategy(king move if possible) and try to prove that the squares cannot be controled in 2 moves by the attacker. Uri
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.