Author: Daniel Clausen
Date: 13:23:54 07/10/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 10, 2002 at 14:17:04, GuyHaworth wrote: > >Yes, if you are computing your EGT(B) to the DTM(ate) metric. > >You might find a 'mate in many moves', only to discover that there was a much >quicker 'mate in much few moves' which appears many retrograde_cycles later in >the computation. > >For example, I forget the exact position but you will get the idea: > >wQb3wBh1h2/bKa1bNe1+w .... > >1.Qa2+ forcing Kxb2 leaves (I guess) a deep KBBKN win > >This mate would be found two cycles into the retrograde_analysis of KQBBKN but >a much quicker win using the Queen would turn up later. Well yes, but I still don't see a problem. If you only mark the positions which are 'mate in 2' during the 2nd cycle and leave the other positions untouched, you don't have this problem. The best you could do for this position in the 2nd cycle is to mark it as a 'potentially mate in 1+(DTM-value of KBBKN)' [a mate in X in iteration Y is only a potential mate if X>Y] I don't see a reason why I would want to do this, especially if this 'error' even propagates to other positions during later iterations. So why not simply leave the position unmarked in this case? Would generating the table be that more slow? Sargon
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.