Author: chandler yergin
Date: 11:14:15 10/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2005 at 13:21:54, Uri Blass wrote: >On October 10, 2005 at 13:00:36, chandler yergin wrote: > >>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! > >The equivalent case was in case capablanca mated in 17 moves and in this case >analysis proves that if you follow her line and change the move of the defender >in the right moment you get mate in 36 and not mate in 35. My mistake in the Posting. Black was to move! Does that change your opinion? Or anything? > >Uri
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.