SFNNUE Fails!! In this Positions!!

[Master Om]

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.

Again u r diverting from the main objective, The OP was about the program finding the best move to be played. Thats it. And when we say best it means the shortest path to victory many times forced which becomes the longest if both side play the correct defense.
There is nothing more to discuss here.

[Ovyron]

And when we say best it means the shortest path to victory many times forced which becomes the longest if both side play the correct defense.
There is nothing more to discuss here.

But that's not the best definition of best.

I'll agree to disagree, but if a move you make makes the opponent resign on the spot, then it's the best, no matter if it's the longest way to mate (you can't just ignore the fact that the opponent should be resigning before that point, or the game should have been adjudicated as a win already, because playing till mate is always a waste of time.)

[Master Om]

And when we say best it means the shortest path to victory many times forced which becomes the longest if both side play the correct defense.
There is nothing more to discuss here.

But that's not the best definition of best.

I'll agree to disagree, but if a move you make makes the opponent resign on the spot, then it's the best, no matter if it's the longest way to mate (you can't just ignore the fact that the opponent should be resigning before that point, or the game should have been adjudicated as a win already, because playing till mate is always a waste of time.)

but if a move you make makes the opponent resign on the spot, then it's the best, no matter if it's the longest way to mate

Illogical thought. Just doesnot make sense. Your idea Works OTB that too in mid elo games not always like in bullet or blitz without increment. Not in CC as time is a factor. Mate in 5 is always better than mate in 49 as its fastest and time is a factor.

(you can't just ignore the fact that the opponent should be resigning before that point, or the game should have been adjudicated as a win already,

Another fallacy. In many human games a opponent in a winning position may lose due to opponent swindles. See how Stenitz won in a mate in 4 position against Chigorin in WC game.
Swindling works in TIME PRESSURE. F Marshall is famous for his swindles. Hence just because I am losing doesnot mean I will resign until i get mated in OTB. In CC it doesnot make sense. I can apply conditonal moves with shortest mate possible. Time matters.

[Ovyron]

Not in CC as time is a factor. Mate in 5 is always better than mate in 49 as its fastest

You have yet to explain why, let's get to the ultimate scenario of this:

I can mate you in 1 move or 2 moves.

I choose to do it in 2.

I mate you in 2.

I feel satisfaction because I was able to choose instead of being forced to mate you in 1.

What did I miss that I'd have gotten if I mated you in 1? You claim mating in 1 is always better, but what's the difference? I got 1 point, you got 0, if mating you in 1 was better I could have gotten 1.0001 points or something.

It makes no difference.

Oh, but it does, Hikaru Nakamura used to humiliate chess engines, one day he had a won game against Rybka, according to you the best he could do was promote to a queen and mate her in the shortest amount of moves. Instead he promoted all this pawns to knights, and proceeded to mate her with the knights.

What a waste of time? But that game made him famous* and continues to be remembered and recalled by his fans, nobody has ever mentioned that he obviously missed a shorter mate!

(* he was already famous in chess circles, this made him famous to people that didn't know him or that didn't know men played against engines, and it also put Rybka on the map for many people, and some even became enthusiasts of chess engines vs. human games BECAUSE of this game, the Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue of this era!)

At the end it can be argued that chess must be played for fun, and that you should mate in the way that maximized the fun, regardless of shortest mates.

[Ovyron]

Not in CC as time is a factor. Mate in 5 is always better than mate in 49 as its fastest

You have yet to explain why, let's get to the ultimate scenario of this:

I can mate you in 1 move or 2 moves.

I choose to do it in 2.

I mate you in 2.

I feel satisfaction because I was able to choose instead of being forced to mate you in 1.

What did I miss that I'd have gotten if I mated you in 1? You claim mating in 1 is always better, but what's the difference? I got 1 point, you got 0, if mating you in 1 was better I could have gotten 1.0001 points or something.

It makes no difference.

Oh, but it does, Hikaru Nakamura used to humiliate chess engines, one day he had a won game against Rybka, according to you the best he could do was promote to a queen and mate her in the shortest amount of moves. Instead he promoted all this pawns to knights, and proceeded to mate her with the knights.

What a waste of time? But that game made him famous* and continues to be remembered and recalled by his fans, nobody has ever mentioned that he obviously missed a shorter mate!

(* he was already famous in chess circles, this made him famous to people that didn't know him or that didn't know men played against engines, and it also put Rybka on the map for many people, and some even became enthusiasts of chess engines vs. human games BECAUSE of this game, the Kasparov Vs. Deep Blue of this era!)

At the end it can be argued that chess must be played for fun, and that you should mate in the way that maximizes the fun, regardless of shortest mates.

[Master Om]

Not in CC as time is a factor. Mate in 5 is always better than mate in 49 as its fastest

You have yet to explain why, let's get to the ultimate scenario of this:

I can mate you in 1 move or 2 moves.

I choose to do it in 2.

I mate you in 2.

I feel satisfaction because I was able to choose instead of being forced to mate you in 1.

What if its a King Bishop Knight vs King position? And not a mate in 2? U have to choose the best move by force or else u end up with draw.
The same Hikaru who trolled crafty was unable to mate lol. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ql8c1VOx-U. All are not crafty.

This is not about mate in 2. Its always not the case where there are many moves leading to mate. But about forcing the moves. Choosing the quickest one is always better. No wonder there are puzzles with mate in 2 or 3 even if u can mate it in 49 moves. many position are there where position is 0.00 but still u have to find the best move. That's why Kasparov said. If u have a good move then find a better one.

[Master Om]

Not in CC as time is a factor. Mate in 5 is always better than mate in 49 as its fastest

Oh, but it does, Hikaru Nakamura used to humiliate chess engines, one day he had a won game against Rybka, according to you the best he could do was promote to a queen and mate her in the shortest amount of moves. Instead he promoted all this pawns to knights, and proceeded to mate her with the knights.

What a waste of time? But that game made him famous* and continues to be remembered and recalled by his fans, nobody has ever mentioned that he obviously missed a shorter mate!

Nakamura did with crafty not Rybka. Also U will never find him doing that against Carlsen or kasparov or with Ding. He simply under estimated and did. U cant give it an example. Nobody mentions it as he trolled crafty. U won't find that he being doing with SuperGMs.