Author: chandler yergin
Date: 14:40:37 01/30/06
Go up one level in this thread
On January 30, 2006 at 12:21:21, Mike Byrne wrote: >On January 30, 2006 at 11:56:20, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On January 30, 2006 at 11:45:41, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>On January 30, 2006 at 10:14:53, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>On January 30, 2006 at 07:07:06, Mike Byrne wrote: >>>> >>>>>On January 30, 2006 at 05:50:04, chandler yergin wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>On January 30, 2006 at 05:26:12, Mike S. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>Paste the FEN string >>>>>>> >>>>>>>8/8/8/6N1/8/3kn3/4nKn1/8 b - - 0 1 >>>>>>> >>>>>>>into that web page: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>http://chess.jaet.org/cgi-bin/dtx >>>>>>> >>>>>>>Black to move, DTM (distance to mate) = 18 >>>>>> >>>>>>Obviously NOT forced! Keep trying. >>>>>>;) >>>>>>Chan >>>>>> >>>>>It's forced alright. Not sure why you don't think it is. >>>>Analysis by Shredder 8: >>>> >>>>1...Nh4 2.Ne4 Ng4+ 3.Kf1 Ke3 4.Nd2 Nd4 5.Ke1 Kd3 6.Kd1 Ne3+ 7.Kc1 Nhg2 >>>>-+ (-10.66) Depth: 32/66 01:07:20 2431231kN, tb=49150885 >>>>(, 30.01.2006) >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>If Shredder can't find at Depth 32/66 it's not there. >>>>It has EGTB's too. >>> >>>I'll ask yet again. Please stop jumping into threads where you don't have a >>>clue about the topic. >>> >>>A mate in 18 will typically need a maximum search depth of 36 plies to find it. >>>32 plies is less than 36 plies. You didn't let shredder go deep enough to prove >>>there is no mate. Even worse, since shredder uses forward pruning, there is no >>>telling how deep it might have to go to find that mate... >>> >>>I don't know why you keep jumping into random threads, and trying to argue a >>>point that has nothing to do with anything, offering evidence that is clearly >>>worthless. It needs to stop. Sooner rather than later... >> >>I had a logical reason to believe the position was not a Mate in 18. >>I did Shredder analysis to verify. >> Depth: 32/66 01:07:20 2431231kN, tb=49150885 >>After tb access of over 49 million times it did not find a Mate. > >Shredder must have a bug -- try contacting the author since it is forced and >Shredder can't see it. This is a "Pawnless" 6 piece endgame" I did not think it through, and I apologize for Butting into the Thread! Thanks for understanding! Best Regards, Chan
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.