Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:29:45 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1999 at 19:25:24, Will Singleton wrote: [snip] >Just guessing, but that's probably because it's not all that important to find >the shortest mate. My evidence for such a wild hypothesis is that none actually >find the mate in 9. Perhaps it would weaken overall play if time was spent on >tracking down the absolute shortest mate in every position. Any mate, as long >as it is a valid mate, is sufficient. > >One problem with my hypothesis is that, if you don't always (or most always) >find the shortest mate, then you may run the risk of missing a mate forever, >since there may exist always a longer mate than a mate in 1. But in my >experience, that risk is just about non-existent. Of course, there is no value in finding the shorter mate other than beauty. A mate in 100 is just as good as a mate in 1 if both are sure. You win. But to find the shorter mate is prettier, don't you think? ;-)
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.