Author: Uri Blass
Date: 12:18:00 10/10/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 10, 2005 at 14:14:15, chandler yergin wrote: >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? No I did not use your position to analyze and I already copied the game from the site earlier. 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.