Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 15:24:07 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 17:44:33, José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba wrote: >On August 03, 1999 at 15:33:10, Ricardo Gibert wrote: > >[big snip] >> >>You "don't get it", because you have overlooked the word "adjourned". >> >>I will give a more specific example: HUMAN plays an ending where he ADJOURNS. He >>must mate OR make pawn move that preserves win OR capture that preserves win >>within say 6 moves to avoid the 50 move rule. In his ADJOURNMENT ANALYSIS, if he >>uses a SHORTEST MATE database, he may wrongly conclude he can't do it. >> >>1. Instead of >> distance to: mate >> >>2. Better is single number representing >> distance to: mate OR win preseving capture OR win preserving pawn move >> (whichever comes soonest) >> >>The 2nd way you ALWAYS win a winnable position. I find it hard to believe >>Nalimov did his EGTB the way you assert (The 1st way). There is nothing I can >>think of that would make the 2nd way listed above significant more difficult to >>do. There is no good reason, I can think of, for using the 1st way in preference >>to the 2nd one. >> >>I hope this is more clear, otherwise, I give up. >> >[big snip] > > Nalimov tablebases store distance-to-mate and only distance-to-mate. I hope >this is clear, and I am sure you understand clearly my statement. If you do not >want to believe me, then I give up. >José. I will only believe it if Nalimov says it is so. If it true, there is a worthy project for someone to take up.
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.