Author: Uri Blass
Date: 11:33:28 07/20/02
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2002 at 14:11:30, Terry McCracken wrote: >On July 20, 2002 at 10:32:25, David Dahlem wrote: > >>On July 20, 2002 at 04:12:37, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On July 19, 2002 at 23:07:20, allan johnson wrote: >>> >>>>On July 19, 2002 at 23:05:58, David Dahlem wrote: >>>> >>>>>On July 19, 2002 at 21:23:19, K. Burcham wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>what is the shortest "mate in x moves" position that you know of that programs >>>>>>have a diffcult time finding or cannot find at all? Please, not e4. >>>>>> >>>>>>will you please post the position? >>>>>>kburcham >>>>> >>>>>I tested some programs on this mate in 1 and some didn't see it. I don't >>>>>remember now which engines couldn't find it. >>>>>[D]5K2/8/2qk4/2nPp3/3r4/6B1/B7/3R4 w - e6 0 1 >>>>>Regards >>>>>Dave >>> >>>I think that this is not the fair way to test >>> >>>You should give programs the following position >>> >>>[D]5K2/4p3/2qk4/2nP4/3r4/6B1/B7/3R4 b - - 0 1 >>> >>>play e5 and see if they cannot see the mate in 1. >>> >>>In other case you use a bug that programs do not >>>support Fen correctly. >>> >>>My latest Movei still ignores the en passant in supporting Fen >>>so it is unfair to say that it cannot see the mate in 1. >>> >>>Uri >> >>The poster asked for a test position and that's what i posted. So whether it's >>fair or not is not revelant. >>Regards >>Dave > >Catch 22:o) If you use Uri's position, then 1...Kd7 avoiding mate. >If you give Dave's position to the computer, it won't understand there is an >en passant, as the move e7-e5 isn't in the computers history. There is a 3th possibility. 1)Give the computer My position. 2)play e7-e5 3)ask the computer to analyze. 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.