Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:04:08 06/06/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 06, 2000 at 19:19:19, Pete R. wrote: >On June 06, 2000 at 16:00:17, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>I think this is a good example to show that "best moves" in EPD test positions >>are only "best moves" for a certain depth unless a checkmate is found. > >I wouldn't go quite that far. For example, after 1. e4 dxe4 in this position, >black is completely lost (assuming best play by white of course). This is not >obvious to a human or a program, but with sufficient investigation becomes clear >well before any checkmate will be seen. If I can prove a win for white after >1...Rh8 then odds are extremely high that 1.e4 really is best. Certainly good >enough in any case. This involves a backsolving process which I did manually, >essentially determining black's best attempt in each line until the best >variation still ended in defeat. Not checkmate, but only a matter of time >until. Just curious, does the CAP project do this sort of backsolving? If this >sort of investigation could be automated, then the CAP data would clearly "see" >further than any program could expect to. That's the basic idea behind the "connect the dots" project. There have been 40 million positions or so (last count) analyzed at 2 seconds. I don't have this data yet.
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.