3 moves earlier?Rebel wrote:Correct, it was not mate in x but mate in y where y=x-(sqrt(49)-log(10000))
Al.
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
3 moves earlier?Rebel wrote:Correct, it was not mate in x but mate in y where y=x-(sqrt(49)-log(10000))
Nope, Ed uses base e.Scally wrote:3 moves earlier?Rebel wrote:Correct, it was not mate in x but mate in y where y=x-(sqrt(49)-log(10000))
Al.
Based on the score you have for "OnlyWeek4Pos2" at your site, my faith in your knowing the right answer has diminished.Rebel wrote:Not entirely, but I had the previous rightzullil wrote:Are you certain you know what the correct number is?Rebel wrote:Four entries so far and 3 got 2 points providing the correct mainline for position-4. I made that visible by adding an extra column called Bonus.
Nobody so far got position-2 right, contributed numbers fluctuate with an interval of 18! We will see next week.
Yes, meSpliffjiffer wrote: has someone found a quicker win ?
regards
Don't give up hope yet, the number I had in mind is wrong and we need to mutually agree on the right number next thursday and then adapt the ranking.zullil wrote:Based on the score you have for "OnlyWeek4Pos2" at your site, my faith in your knowing the right answer has diminished.Rebel wrote:Not entirely, but I had the previous rightzullil wrote:Are you certain you know what the correct number is?Rebel wrote:Four entries so far and 3 got 2 points providing the correct mainline for position-4. I made that visible by adding an extra column called Bonus.
Nobody so far got position-2 right, contributed numbers fluctuate with an interval of 18! We will see next week.
How will you prove that your answer is correct? Mine is based on several days of forward and backward analysis with Cfish, reaching depth 102.
Do we agree that we are asking for moves by Black that extend the game as long as possible---even if they destroy the theme of the original study?
Just ask Dann. I trust him.Rebel wrote: Don't give up hope yet, the number I had in mind is wrong and we need to mutually agree on the right number next thursday and then adapt the ranking.
Actually, I think my answer was wrong too. Off by 1 it seems, after additional investigation.Rebel wrote:Don't give up hope yet, the number I had in mind is wrong and we need to mutually agree on the right number next thursday and then adapt the ranking.zullil wrote:Based on the score you have for "OnlyWeek4Pos2" at your site, my faith in your knowing the right answer has diminished.Rebel wrote:Not entirely, but I had the previous rightzullil wrote:Are you certain you know what the correct number is?Rebel wrote:Four entries so far and 3 got 2 points providing the correct mainline for position-4. I made that visible by adding an extra column called Bonus.
Nobody so far got position-2 right, contributed numbers fluctuate with an interval of 18! We will see next week.
How will you prove that your answer is correct? Mine is based on several days of forward and backward analysis with Cfish, reaching depth 102.
Do we agree that we are asking for moves by Black that extend the game as long as possible---even if they destroy the theme of the original study?