Author: Heiner Marxen
Date: 09:12:56 09/13/99
Go up one level in this thread
On September 13, 1999 at 03:43:34, Shep wrote: >On September 12, 1999 at 10:45:48, Heiner Marxen wrote: > > >>That depends upon the exact meaning of "solve": >>(a) Find any forced mate, however deep it is. >> This is what normal playing programs are interested in, >> and what some of them are really good at. >>(b) Find the absolutely shortest forced mate. Be absolutely sure >> that there is no shorter forced mate. >> This is needed for chess problems (e.g. to check the correctness >> of a problem). >> >>(b) is much harder than (a) (i.e. takes more time). And if you really >>want (b) you must tell your normal playing program quite explicitly to >>do so (if that is possible at all), or use a special mate solver program. > >And don't forget the most important one: > > (c) Display a full variation tree for the mate. > >That's is what Mate 2.0 (Fritz package) does, and it's a great feature. I don't know Mate 2.0, but yes, of course CHEST does that. You can get a full tree, optionally limited in depth (from the root), optionally omitting duals (for a depth from the leaves), optionally reordered and reduced by notations for "any move" and "all other moves". Full solution trees can be *very* BIIIG. Another related feature I found very important is a "refutation table", listing all the non-solution key moves together with that answer move, which CHEST found refutes. This is important in order to spot problems, when CHEST insists that something is not a mate in 8, while you are "sure", it is a mate in 8 (CHEST is right most of the time :-). Cheers, Heiner >--- >Shep
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.