Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 11:10:38 09/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2000 at 03:07:06, Christophe Theron wrote: >On September 27, 2000 at 05:24:39, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 27, 2000 at 05:17:52, Ed Schröder wrote: >> >>>On September 27, 2000 at 05:13:57, Ed Schröder wrote: >>> >>>>On September 27, 2000 at 04:45:38, Eduard Nemeth wrote: >>>> >>>>>[D]8/8/p3R3/1p5p/1P5p/6rp/5K1p/7k w - - 0 1 >>>>> >>>>>Shredder 4 and Fritz 6a this don't find ! >>>>> >>>>>Eduard >>>> >>>>I guess every Rebel version will solve this one very quick. >>>> >>>>00:01 10.00 Mate in 7 moves 2.Re1+ Rg1 3.Rf1 a5 4.bxa5 b4 5.a6 b3 6.a7 Rxf1+ >>>>7.Kxf1 b2 8.a8=Q+ >>>> >>>>This comes from Century 2.0 >>>> >>>>Ed >>> >>>And here is Tiger II beta: >>> >>>00:00:00.7 Mate in 6 12 122224 Re1+ Rg1 Rf1 a5 bxa5 b4 a6 Rxf1+ Kxf1 >>>b3 a7 b2 a8Q# >>> >>>Ed >> >>The score is mate in 6 and the pv shows mate in 7. >>Is there a bug in writing the score correctly? >> >>Uri > > >No, it's done on purpose. > >Announcing mate in 7 sounds like "I have found the solution of the problem, and >it's a mate in 7". For me this would be perfect & correct. AFAIK, this PV is exactly a solution to a "mate in 7" chess problem. It is forced, 13 plys deep, and the side to move does win. Which part of "mate in 7" is not matched? >Announcing mate in 6 means: "I play this move, and then you are mate in 6 moves >(or less)". For me, this is a less accurate description of the situation. >I know it sounds more brilliant to announce a mate in 7 than a mate in 6, but I >prefer the second way. Of course you are free to choose your own way to express it. In this case there already exists a fairly accurate term which matches the situation. I feel it should be used, therefore. At least, you _did_ confuse me (and some others). > Christophe Heiner
This page took 0.01 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.