Author: Michael Diosi
Date: 09:46:48 09/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
Hello, On September 30, 2005 at 12:15:03, George Tsavdaris wrote: >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....... > It should play checkers also... >>> >>>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........ No retroanalys, loom at Fruit you will learn what fundamental means. >> >> >> 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...... Well this is not Chris or my fault. The question is who is stupid, we know you don't. Michael
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.