Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 17:37:20 12/22/99
Go up one level in this thread
On December 22, 1999 at 20:25:53, Will Singleton wrote: >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. On the other hand, if you give [for instance] Crafty lots of time, it will search for shorter and shorter mates. It is quite good at finding short ones, but I think this one would take an eternity.
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.