Author: F. Huber
Date: 14:20:57 01/08/05
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2005 at 17:01:04, chandler yergin wrote: >On January 08, 2005 at 12:20:55, F. Huber wrote: > >>On January 08, 2005 at 11:46:22, chandler yergin wrote: >> >>>Mrs. Gilbert announced Mate in 35 >>> >>>Rather Astounding! >>> >>>Shredder 8 certainly hasn't found it yet.. >> >>I´ve now tried both positions with different programs and even with some >>mate solvers, but none of them have seen any mate yet! >> >>So I really doubt, that these mate announcement are correct, i.e. that these >>positions are absolutly _forced_ mates!? >>(who else could prove this, if not by the help of computers and mate solvers?) >> >>Regards, >>Franz. > > YOU LOSE DUDE! > >Haa Haaa Thank You! > >I can Post the Entire Game! > >The Brilliance of this Young Lady.. well, she was married at the time.. >so not tooo young. > >If you want to Verify... >Check out: >White: George Gossip >Black: Ellen Gilbert >USA ; United Kingdom >Telegraphic Match, 1879, Ruy Lopez > >Then: tell us this young lady was not an amazing Calculator.. surpassing the TOP >Programs of Today! Sorry, but I don´t get the point of your answer! Would you say, that posting the entire game would be a _proof_ of the correctness of these mate announcements? Even if these games were finished in _exactly_ the announced number of moves, this is far away from any true proof. I´ve seen already dozens of long mate studies of quite popular authors, which I (and others) have proved to be completely wrong by the help of mate solvers! So again: where is your PROOF? 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.