Author: Sune Fischer
Date: 14:43:15 05/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On May 10, 2005 at 14:00:25, F. Huber wrote: >On May 10, 2005 at 13:52:31, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Which is (of course) a prefectly valid result. >> >>I would prefer a more specific diagnosis (e.g. 'Too many pieces -- count > 32' >>or 'Too many black queens -- count > 9' or something of that nature. But >>diagnosic+failre is one of the two ideal situations (the other being processing >>the position normally for "extended" problem solving. Some of Leonid's >>fascinating positions along with Venton Abillo's positions are not always >>legal). > >You´re right, they are sometimes ´a little bit´ illegal - but not so extreme. > >IMO at least 2 conditions should always be true: >1) exactly one king for each side >2) a maximum of 16 pieces for each side Number 2 is not strictly necessary, I think many engines can play perfectly sensible "chess" with more than 32 pieces. However, to be well defined at least the following must be true *) no pawns on 1st and 8th rank *) side not to move must not be in check (includes non-adjacent kings) and of course exactly one king for each side as you mention. >That are e.g. the necessary requirements for Chest, and seem quite logical >to me - everything else should not really confuse a well programmed engine! Hmm.. :) -S. >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.