Author: Terry McCracken
Date: 12:14:56 12/04/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 04, 2005 at 14:37:13, Robert Hyatt wrote: >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? More than enough, I was trying to convey this to Chan.
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.