Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 18:48:48 08/03/99
Go up one level in this thread
On August 03, 1999 at 18:24:07, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >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. Believe what you want, of course. But Nalimov's databases _only_ store distance to mate for every position. nothing else. You can download his code and look at it if you want to be convinced further...
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.