Author: Drexel,Michael
Date: 15:36:35 01/02/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 02, 2003 at 17:52:50, Uri Blass wrote: >On January 02, 2003 at 16:39:27, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On January 02, 2003 at 16:16:05, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >> >>>On January 02, 2003 at 15:53:44, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>> >>>>Hello Dieter, >>>[...] >>>>at which depth do you think it would find the mate? 30/30? >>> >>>Sorry, I am the wrong person to answer this question. How should I know? >>> >>>>this 'behaviour' has obviously something to do with its superior playing >>>>strength. >>> >>>? >>> >>>Regards, >>>Dieter >> >>just wanted to say that this kind of tests (with unreal or unlikely situations) >>are not important, regarding playing strength. >> >>Michael > >I disagree. > >I believe that knowing to solve the position is an advantage from playing >strength point of view. > >It may be unimportant if white had another win but it is not the case here. > In this special case it is an advantage but how often would such a type of position occur in the middle game? Shredder 7 and Fritz 8 (Junior and Chesstiger 15 results would be of interest too) are not able to find the best move in reasonable time. Im not a chessprogrammer but it seems clear to me that 'comercials' are able to get deeper into the search, by excluding more variations then most freeware programs do. hence they often fail to find mates in such positions. this weaknesses usually cant be exploited from other programs because no programm is able to attack in case mate is beyond horizon and material disadvantage is high, humans can. Movei cannot find it in a reasonable time but the reason is only the fact that I >still did not implement the right extensions. > >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.