Author: Graham Banks
Date: 12:16:18 09/30/05
Go up one level in this thread
On September 30, 2005 at 12:46:48, Michael Diosi wrote: >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 Please keep it civil Michael! :-) If this thread degenerates moderator action will need to be considered. Regards, Graham.
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.