Author: Uri Blass
Date: 13:34:14 09/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 26, 2000 at 14:37:07, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >On September 26, 2000 at 06:46:18, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I hope that it can see mate at depth<16 in order to prove again that the depth >>is not important. > > >I think there is no mate there. I ran my matefinder on that position >for over 500M nodes and it showned no sign of converging yet. > >Of course the position eventually leads to a mate, but it may be >over 40 ply away, or something, at least nearly inpossible to >pin down to a variant. > >(I hope the position is indeed the one I tested, I can't >verify since the data is currently on a computer 15Km away >without an internet connection) > >-- >GCP I tend to agree. I also did not find mate with chessmaster6000 and stopped to analyze it. Proving the mate seems to be above the ability of human+program did you try your mate solver in the previous positions when chessmaster found forced mate? Is it faster than chessmaster6000? 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.