Author: Uri Blass
Date: 09:45:41 09/23/01
Go up one level in this thread
On September 23, 2001 at 12:15:35, José Carlos wrote: >On September 23, 2001 at 11:02:09, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On September 23, 2001 at 08:54:02, Gian-Carlo Pascutto wrote: >> >>>On September 23, 2001 at 05:29:51, Peter Berger wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>[D]2b3k1/p4ppp/7q/2Q5/8/P3r1P1/1r4BP/R3R1K1 b - - bm Bb7; id "ECM.1197"; >>>> >>>>This one looks wrong. >>> >>>Nope...Bb7 is the fastest mate. >> >>What is the importance of finding the fastest mate. >>There are programs that stop to search when they find one mate and I do not see >>it as important for games if they know to find a shorter mate in the next move. > > This is wrong, partially. Of course playing programs are not mate provers, but >if you stop the search in _any_ mate, you can play a check that leads to mate in >5. The next move, check again, which leads to mate in 5. Then, another move that >leads to mate in 6, and so on... You might lose on time meanwhile. I wrote "I do not see it as important for games if they know to find a shorter mate in the next move" It means that the program can stop in the first mate and in the next move to stop only when it finds a shorter mate. If the program can remember the full tree that proved the mate then it even does not need to use time in the rest of the moves to find a shorter mate in the next move. If the tree is too big to remember for the program then it means that the program needed a lot of time to find the mate and it means that it had time and again there is no problem of losing on time unless the program got into big time trouble in the last move and getting into a big time trouble in one move is usually not logical(the only exception is if the program thought that it is losing but it is not the case here). 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.