Author: Martin Slowik
Date: 10:19:00 03/31/05
Go up one level in this thread
On March 31, 2005 at 12:22:53, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On March 31, 2005 at 11:27:43, Drexel,Michael wrote: > >>On March 31, 2005 at 11:00:11, F. Huber wrote: >> >>>On March 31, 2005 at 10:09:48, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>> >>>>On March 31, 2005 at 09:54:46, F. Huber wrote: >>>> >>>>>On March 31, 2005 at 09:39:52, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Personally, I am not at all interested in how >>>>>> fast a "normal" chess program does solve >>>>>> a chess problem with mate in X but much more >>>>>> interested in seeing the performance of an >>>>>> engine in practical chess positions (positions >>>>>> that can happen in a game). For chess problems >>>>>> we can use the special programs. And so it does >>>>>> not bother me if Shredder should need a lot of time >>>>>> to find the solution in the given position :-) >>>>>> Kurt >>>>> >>>>>Hello Kurt, >>>>> >>>>>"practical chess positions (positions that can happen in a game)"? >>>>>Would you say, a position with mate in X can _not_ happen in a game? >>>>>Have you really never _mated_ your opponent (or have been mated by him)? >>>>> >>>>>A quite strange opinion - IMO. ;-) >>>>> >>>>>Regards, >>>>>Franz. >>>> >>>> Hello Franz >>>> For your better understanding I should perhaps >>>> have stated "realistic" and "unrealistic" >>>> chess positions. >>>> Regards >>>> Kurt >>> >>>Hello Kurt, >>> >>>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. >> >>>So almost every won (or lost) game ends up in such a ´mate in X´ - >>>and that´s absolutely "realistic"! :-) >>> >>>Regards, >>>Franz. >> >>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+. >> >>Michael > > Just right Michael > The position is in so far unrealistic as > White can easily win with 1.Bxd5 and any > chessplayer (who deserves this title) would > have resigned before not allowing White to get > this position. And in such situations it's > absolutely of non interest if White can > mate in X moves. > Kurt I'm a chessplayer myself but the realism is here not the point. The reasoning in this thread somehow raises for example the question if you never look at paintings at all. I mean if photographs show every detail much better than paintings, it's 'absolutely of no interest' to paint anything as well... ;) Martin
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.