Author: F. Huber
Date: 12:15:03 06/10/04
Go up one level in this thread
On June 10, 2004 at 15:05:07, Dann Corbit wrote: >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. You are right, if you are only interested in the result of a game (=win), but of course not, if you want to find the optimum mate. But nevertheless I´m sure, that even _you_ would prefer a win in 15 moves instead of 18 moves!? ;-)
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.