Author: David Rasmussen
Date: 16:49:56 09/17/02
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2002 at 19:08:09, Dann Corbit wrote: >On September 17, 2002 at 19:02:24, David Rasmussen wrote: >[snip] >>All of these alternative mates are not solutions, that is the point. I don't >>think any program will have problems finding _some_ mate in these positions. The >>hard thing is to find the right (shortest) mate in these last positions, with >>normal playing techniques (null move etc.) . > >I disagree. Once a program has found a mate that is proven, the value of the >solution is +1 from a game theoretic standpoint. The lenght to the mate is >irrelevant, unless the program has neglected some checkmate rule. As far as >getting the shortest possible checkmate, that is a job for a dedicated mate >finder. > That is a valid opinion (which I happen to agree with), but that is not the point. I chose those positions specifically because they seem to highlight some of the problems of some search-techniques, such as null-move. If one is happy with any mate, one should disregard the positions from #931 and on. Even though mate finding is often not important in itself, I think it is fascinating that some of the good programs manages to find these mates so quickly, in normal playing mode, not a special mate search mode. /David
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.