Author: John Merlino
Date: 14:01:11 04/24/05
Go up one level in this thread
On April 24, 2005 at 16:49:55, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >On April 24, 2005 at 16:45:12, John Merlino wrote: > >>On April 24, 2005 at 16:40:26, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On April 24, 2005 at 16:28:06, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >>> >>>>On April 24, 2005 at 15:05:41, John Merlino wrote: >>>> >>>>>On April 24, 2005 at 14:31:52, Jack Lad wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>[d] 6nr/p2rkp1n/1pQRq1pp/1N2P3/8/4BN1P/PPP2PP1/2K4R w >>>>>> >>>>>>1.Nc7 or Nfd4? >>>>>> >>>>>>Or can they both mate in the same number of moves? >>>>> >>>>>Playing through the lines, it appears that: >>>>> >>>>>1.Nc7 is a Mate in 9. >>>>> >>>>>1.Nfd4 is a Mate in 11. >>>>> >>>>>jm >>>> >>>>3 best moves from ChessMaster 10 (AMD@3000+) >>>> >>>>Time Depth Score Positions Moves >>>>9:38 1/13 Mate09 233251425 1.Nc7 Rxc7 2.Qxc7+ Kf8 3.Rxe6 Kg7 >>>> 4.Nh4 Ng5 5.Bxg5 Ne7 6.Bf6+ Kh7 >>>> 7.Qxe7 Rf8 8.Qxf8 fxe6 9.Qg7# >>> >>>You need to be careful with 1.Nc7. If CMX is anything like Ruffian, it will get >>>a mate score, lose it, get it again only to lose it again while shifting from a >>>best response to it of Rxc7, Nf8, Qf5 and Ngf6 all the while. Ruffian had a >>>tough time with 1.Nc7. It took 5 times longer to reach the same depth of 14 that >>1.Rxe6 got and ultimately lost the mate score. >> >>Chessmaster will never lose a mate score for the side to move. Once it reports a >>mate, the only thing it can do is possibly report a shorter mate. >> >>Therefore, my "playing with the lines" (which you comment on in another post) >>was merely to ensure that there was no shorter mate than the ones that The King >>found relatively quickly. >> >>jm > >Okay. I did not know that CM enforced the property of never losing a mate score. >Interesting. In my opinion, no engine should report a mate score and then say "oops, I was wrong, sorry...." :-) jm
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.