Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 15:30:27 09/14/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 14, 2000 at 18:07:24, walter irvin wrote: >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 . Some program (we'll call it program 'X') sees a checkmate in 60 after 1/20th of a second. It stops searching (despite the 30 minutes on the clock left, and two full minutes allocated for this move). Another program uses 2 minutes and finds a mate in 3. You will actually be fully satisfied with the first program? I know I won't.
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.