Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 03:29:32 01/18/00
Go up one level in this thread
On January 18, 2000 at 04:42:47, Jeremiah Penery wrote: >On January 18, 2000 at 04:21:45, Dann Corbit wrote: > >>Has any computer ever solved any of them? >> >>If not, why not? >> >>Zugzwang? >>Positional? >>Too deep? >>or >>??? > >I have had several 'versions' of my modified Crafties that 'solve' #3. They do >not find the true tactical win there (it's way too deep), but choose the move >positionally. I think the reason most programs don't get it is that they value >the queen more relative to the other pieces. Since it's more of a positional >queen sac problem, they won't find it because of this. > >With #6 and #9, the solution is simply _way_ too deep for any current computer, >combined with the fact that the 'solutions' given may not contain all the >optimal moves. Pierre Nolot himself said he wasn't too sure about #9, and >welcomed any analysis to show its validity (or non-validity :). Nxg5 you can find by extending all crap of the world. I don't do that in DIEP. These positions are made for crap extensions. Only #10 is cool to find in a positional way.
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.