Author: Robert Hyatt
Date: 11:37:13 12/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2005 at 03:00:01, Terry McCracken wrote: >On December 04, 2005 at 00:21:59, chandler yergin wrote: > >>On December 04, 2005 at 00:05:12, Terry McCracken wrote: >> >>>On December 03, 2005 at 23:48:36, chandler yergin wrote: >>> >>>>Ever Scroll a PV and see it change it's Eval over time? >>>>If yes, then that ends the discussion. >>> >>>Irrelevant. >>Tell that to Hyatt! > >Why? Your post is jibberish. Did Dr. Robert Hyatt spew nonsense, as you seem to >suggest? No! > >Chan wake up, you're arguing with the pros, you're not even a novice in chess >progamming. > >Why don't you listen to the best in the field? The best post here, with a few >exceptions. You're an orderly whose disorderly, telling neurologists how to do a >brain transplant! > >Terry I don't know why this is continuing. Here is a simple example. Let's do _just_ a 5 ply search, no more. And in that search, we find a forced mate in 3. That is, a move for white, a move for black, a move for white, a move for black, a move for white, and now white has no legal moves and is in check. We return "mate in 3". Now exactly _how_ can we do a 6 ply search and find that the mate in 3 was wrong, that there is really a mate in 4 or more moves and not 3? If the mate in 3 is there at depth=5, it is there at depth=6, 7, 8, 9, ... N, and will _never_ go away, if it is a real forced mate. If it isn't a real forced mate, the search has a bug because returning mate in 3 is an absolute, not an approximation. Surely this has been explained enough times that we can move on to something more interesting?
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.