Author: George Tsavdaris
Date: 09:15:03 09/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2005 at 12:05:07, Kurt Utzinger wrote: >On September 30, 2005 at 12:01:24, Chris Conkie wrote: > >>> So explain me why all these engines -from the programmers who started with the >>>rules- try to evaluate this position: >> >>It is not about retro analysis. Whether you can reach a position or not is not >>what we are showing here. >> >>We are showing what should be fundamentally implemented here. >> >>You cannot have more than 32 pieces in a game of classic chess, nor can you have >>(or should you want to have) more that two kings on the board. Nor you can have a double Pawn when no captures made! And since no one can implement a universal illegal-position-identifying-way, it's better not to bother for idenifying ANY illegal position....... >> >>You cannot guard against unreachable positions but you can (and should) cater >>for the fundamental rules of chess. Fundamental? An illegal position is illegal. No matter if you have 48 Kings on the board or just a double Pawn........ > > > Hi Chris > This all is true but it's also a fact > that your examples have not practical > relevance and therefore I don't bother. Correct! You shouldn't bother. I believe that no one is stupid enough to set any position like this......What's the reason? I don't know......
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.