Author: F. Huber
Date: 11:36:04 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 12:52:23, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 10, 2004 at 09:22:10, Daniel Jackson wrote: > >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?369410 >>CM9K needs far too much time, and it is a mate in 15 rather than 17. My mistake. >> >>S8 mate in 18, 13 min >>http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?369444 >> >>Shredder gets it wrong. > >As long as it finds a mate, the solution is identical, from a game theoretical >standpoint. > >It is a very frequent occurence for a chess playing engine to find a different >and longer mate than a chess mate finder. > >The solution is not wrong. In fact, it is optimal. It just is not the shortest >path to the goal. Sorry Dann, but here I can´t agree! Ok, a ´longer´ mate is of course _not_ wrong (as long as it is forced), but by no means I would say that such a mate is ´optimal´! I think, that really _every_ chessplayer here would only call the ´shortest´ solution an ´optimal mate´. Regards, Franz.
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.