Author: walter irvin
Date: 15:07:24 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 16:31:12, Uri Blass wrote: >On September 14, 2000 at 15:55:55, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Here are a set of tough positions to search deeply. Just finding a mate is not >>good enough, uless you can *prove* it is the shortest mate. > >Finding a mate is good enough even if you cannot prove that it is the shortest >mate. > >Doing mistakes of not finding the shortest mate is going to change nothing in >rating points so I do not see the importance of it for normal chess programs >that are not mate solvers. > >I do not see the point of searching to 16 plies. >It is easy to search faster if you do more pruning. > >Uri you said it uri in normal chess it is not going to make a diff if it finds the shortest mate .
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.