Author: Uri Blass
Date: 21:13:58 08/12/00
Go up one level in this thread
On August 12, 2000 at 16:22:37, Adrien Regimbald wrote: <snipped> >If you want to guarantee that you >have correctly ascertained if there is a mate in <x> from any given position, >you need to do a brute force search up to depth <x>, possibly depth <x+1> >depending on how you do mate detection. You do not need to do a brute force search of all the possible moves to see that there is no mate in <x>. Here is a simple example: [D]8/8/8/3k4/8/8/8/1Q5K w - - 0 1 I can detect that there is no mate in 1 for white without searching because one piece cannot cover all the 9 squares. I do not need to search all possible moves of white to know it. Chest use these kind of ideas and this is the reason that it is the best mate solver. 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.