Author: Will Singleton
Date: 17:25:53 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1999 at 19:29:45, Dann Corbit wrote: >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? >;-) Oh, sure. And if a program can play at a top level and also find the shortest possible mate, then great. Empirically, it just doesn't seem to happen. Will
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.