Author: chandler yergin
Date: 10:00:36 10/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2005 at 12:54:13, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 10, 2005 at 11:27:41, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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. > >Yes and this was similiar case to the case of Mrs Gilbert. > >She said mate in 35 but she did not prove it and it could be only mate in 36 in >case that the opponent did not follow her line even if she played the best moves >after the opponent go out of her line. > >Uri No, you miss the point again. She found a Mate in 35! You remind me of the story about Capablanca who once announced Mate in 16. He actually Mated the guy in 12. His opponent said.. "Haa Haa Senior Capa you said it was Mate in 16." Capa replied.. Well, I assumed you would play the best moves! You are nit-picking Uri Stop it!
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.