Author: F. Huber
Date: 09:07:32 03/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 31, 2005 at 11:27:43, Drexel,Michael wrote: >>that won´t change anything - look at the #5 position in the posting at the >>start of this thread: is this "unrealistic"? Not at all IMO! >> >>And the same is true for lots of mate problems, although of course there >>exist also many mate puzzles, which are absolutely ´constructed´ and so >>(in your words) "unrealistic". >>But isn´t the _main_ goal of chess some ´mate in X´? > >No, the main goal is to force resignation of your opponent. And _when_ will your opponent resign? If he clearly sees that he will be mated in a few moves! Every resignation _without_ any _near_ mate is absolutely nonsense - so _my_ stated goal of chess is still true! :-) >>So almost every won (or lost) game ends up in such a ´mate in X´ - >>and that´s absolutely "realistic"! :-) >Kurt is absolutely right.The solution is not realistic at all. >1.Kh5 is _not_ the best move in this position in human chess, 1.Bxd5+ is. >Why? >It wins the game ímmediately since any decent chessplayer would resign in no >time in view of 1...Kxd5 2.Ne3+. Sorry, but that´s nonsense again! Do you really want to say, that not a mating move is the best one, but a move which causes the opponent to resign??? Well, in this case e.g. 1.c4 would be the ´best´ move for Kasparov if playing against _me_, because I would resign _immerdiately_ after it ... ;-) 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.