Computer Chess Club Archives




Subject: Re: Mate in 7 moves - diagram

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 !
>>>>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
>>>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#
>>The score is mate in 6 and the pv shows mate in 7.
>>Is there a bug in writing the score correctly?
>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


This page took 0.05 seconds to execute

Last modified: Thu, 07 Jul 11 08:48:38 -0700

Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.