Author: chandler yergin
Date: 08:27:41 10/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2005 at 10:43:13, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 10, 2005 at 10:24:01, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On October 10, 2005 at 10:11:44, Uri Blass wrote: >> >>>On October 10, 2005 at 08:39:05, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>The point of course Uri is being able to announce Mate in 35 from this position! >>>> >>>>[D]8/2p5/2b2Bpp/2P5/pK2P1kP/1p6/1P6/8 w - - 0 1 >>> >>>You can announce mate in won position. >> >>Oh yes.. given all the moves, the Computer now can find a mate. >>No Computer can announce mate in 35 like the young lady. >>Sorry Uri, you lose this one hands down! >> >>> >>>The point is that there is no proof for mate in 35 and the defender could get >>>mated in 36 moves by changing one of the moves in the condition. >>> >>>Uri >> Sorry, the 'proof' is in the game. > >No > >The defender could defend better and chest that find the shortest mate found >longer mate after better move of the defender. In every game lost, the defender 'could' have played better or he would not have lost. Is that not true? > >If chest say mate in 8 after 70.Kd5 and mate in 7 after 70.Kd7 then it means >that there is no mate in 7 after 70.Kd5 and it is obvious that her mate was one >move longer in case that the human opponent played 70.Kd5 and accepting the rest >of the condition. One move longer... yes, by a Computer. From the position, can you calculate and find a Mate in 35 moves? Without chest? I don't think so. Why can't you give credit where credit is due? > >It was not important for the opponent to contradict the condition because the >number of moves that he is losing was not important for him but she certainly >did not prove mate in 35. > >>The defender 'could' you say? >>Ahhh but he didn't did he? > >If I play against weak player then I can say mate in 70 in the opening position >with white and give him a condition that he cannot refute. You can of course 'say' Mate in 70 but of course you can't prove it. Right? A useless and irresponsible comment. So you say Mate in 70, the opponent blunders and you mate him in 17. > >My condition can begine with 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Qh4 and of course the opponent may >try to improve with black but he is going to get mated in less than 70 moves >because of blunders that he is going to play later. So what's your point? > >Uri That's not the same as calculating and finding a Mate without Computer assist. You know that! An amazing achievement which you will not admit. Shame!
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.