Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 12:05:07 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 15:04:37, Dann Corbit wrote: >On June 10, 2004 at 14:36:04, F. Huber wrote: > >>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´. > >The outcome of the game does not change. Therefore, the choice is optimal. >A win is a win. The shorter win may be prettier. But it is not better. Perhaps this is more clear: The game theoretic result is unchanged.
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.