Computer Chess Club Archives

Messages

Subject: Re: Mate in 7 moves - diagram

Author: Ricardo Gibert

Date: 08:59:38 09/29/00

Go up one level in this thread

```On September 29, 2000 at 11:04:33, Uri Blass wrote:

>On September 29, 2000 at 09:56:32, Ricardo Gibert wrote:
>
>>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".
>>>
>>>Announcing mate in 6 means: "I play this move, and then you are mate in 6 moves
>>>(or less)".
>>>
>>>I know it sounds more brilliant to announce a mate in 7 than a mate in 6, but I
>>>prefer the second way.
>>>
>>
>>Okay, we understand you did it on purpose and you prefer it that way, now change
>>it to the way most people expect it should work! You are unwittingly positing
>>the idea in the mind of your customers that your program contains silly bugs. Of
>>course, they may not be justified in this conclusion, but that is irrelevant.
>>What is relevant is this "feature" may cost you money unnecessarily. It is
>>simplist to avoid this by changing it to what people expect.
>
>This kind of "feature" is irrelevant for me in the decision if to buy the
>program.
>If I can translate the score to the real score than it is enough for me even in
>cases that there is a bug.
>
>I guess that most people expect the same as you and me but I can speak only for
>myself and not for the majority.
>
>I do not think that this will be a reason for people to decide not to buy tiger.
>
>Uri

Let's say that hypothetically speaking, you are typical prospective customer
and are having a tough time deciding which program to buy. This is only natural,
they are all quite strong. One is is better in one position, while the other is
better in another position.

Suddenly you notice this "odd thing" about Tiger. Before you were "on the fence"
as to whether or not to buy it. Now this "odd thing" pushes you "off the fence"
and in the direction of a competitors program. Sounds plausible doesn't it?

Maybe this might happen or maybe not. Why tempt fate? Change it and rest easy! I
know this is a little thing, but all the little things have a way of adding up.
You have to pay attention to them and make adjustments. You can't please
everybody, but you must try!

The same argument can be applied to annoying limitations to the demo version of
a program like only allowing the user to play only 20 moves of a game or
disabling certains features of the program so that the user is prevented from
evaluating them. Dumb!

If you annoy your customers with limitations and oddities, you can expect some
of them to not reward you for it.

```