SFNNUE Fails!! In this Positions!!

[hgm]

There is a difference between delaying by offering tough resistance, and delaying by silly sacrifices. I agree that in human blitz/bullet chess things are a bit different, because "the clock is a piece" there, and board positions that are game-theoretical losses can be certain wins there because of time.

I guess the thing that really counts is to maximize the distance to a trivial loss. Sacrificing a Queen or Rook in an equal position to delay a deep mate by 1 move only speeds up the loss, because the advantage of a Queen or Rook will be a trivial win for the opponent even at bullet speed. So you basically take a certain-loss-in-1 instead of the deep mate.

[Master Om]

There is a difference between delaying by offering tough resistance, and delaying by silly sacrifices. I agree that in human blitz/bullet chess things are a bit different, because "the clock is a piece" there, and board positions that are game-theoretical losses can be certain wins there because of time.

I guess the thing that really counts is to maximize the distance to a trivial loss. Sacrificing a Queen or Rook in an equal position to delay a deep mate by 1 move only speeds up the loss, because the advantage of a Queen or Rook will be a trivial win for the opponent even at bullet speed. So you basically take a certain-loss-in-1 instead of the deep mate.

Completely agree.

[MikeB]

<snip>
When you are losing, going for the longest game is often a fatal mistake.

I love it when I see the computer played a mate delaying Qx check?. Now it's "I got this game won and don't blow it time" , especially by not seeing a stalemate trap

[hgm]

In human-engine games this happens a lot. I played my Chu Shogi engine some time on the 81dojo server, and in one game it was ahead by the equivalent of a Queen and two Rooks, when it saw the opponent had a deep mate. So it sacrificed three Queen-class pieces and three Rook-class pieces in a row to delay the mate. But of course the human opponent did not see the mate at all. Being two Queens and a Rook ahead now, he had little trouble winning the end-game, though.

[Ovyron]

There is no such rule. One can play as he wishes.

That's exactly what I've been saying

You're the one saying the shortest mate should be played, as if there was such a rule, as if the winning player couldn't play as they wish.

[Joerg Oster]

There is no such rule. One can play as he wishes.

That's exactly what I've been saying

You're the one saying the shortest mate should be played, as if there was such a rule, as if the winning player couldn't play as they wish.

Sure, when humans are playing.

But from engines (or should I say calculators ... yes, they are calculating a mate!) I really do expect they show me the shortest win!

[Master Om]

There is no such rule. One can play as he wishes.

That's exactly what I've been saying

You're the one saying the shortest mate should be played, as if there was such a rule, as if the winning player couldn't play as they wish.

Again u r comparing apples with oranges.
Someone playing as he likes and finding the best moves by a program are two different things.

[Ovyron]

Someone playing as he likes and finding the best moves by a program are two different things.

That I don't play the shortest mate doesn't mean I couldn't find it, I could have found it and decided to prolong the game (since the player that hasn't resigned did just that - how can it be argued that only the losing player can do it? why does the loser have more rights? more freedom?)

[Master Om]

Someone playing as he likes and finding the best moves by a program are two different things.

That I don't play the shortest mate doesn't mean I couldn't find it, I could have found it and decided to prolong the game (since the player that hasn't resigned did just that - how can it be argued that only the losing player can do it? why does the loser have more rights? more freedom?)

Here the question is about a program finding the best move in its PV with highest eval.
U r diverting the OP to different way.

[Ovyron]

Here the question is about a program finding the best move in its PV with highest eval.
U r diverting the OP to different way.

But the same applies (if a losing unassisted engine doesn't resign lost position then the winning unassisted engine should be able to win any way it wants, including longest mate, because the one wasting everyone's time is the one that doesn't resign.) If you accept I'm right in assisted chess you accept I'm right in unassisted, because nothing changes conceptually.