Not when you start throwing in time control issues.Uri Blass wrote: Your fear that the program is going to see draw and miss it later has no rational basis because usually if it can see a draw in move X then you can expect it also to see the draw in move X+1 because you need less search depth at move X+1.
If you can guarantee you'll always have enough time or are searching to a fixed depth this it wont be an issue.
Nope, we do know why. It was admitted & discussed. That became a classic in computer chess because of that. There have been lots of games lost due to bugs that aren't even remembered.We do not know what was Coko's problem to find the mate but I suspect that it was simply a bug that caused Coko to believe that there is mate when there was no mate or caused Coko to play too fast.
He simply did not have bonsuses for closer mates. So it picked at random.
Then with the shallow search depths they were using way back then, it didn't take much to push the mate over the horizion.
That's not to say the program was bug free.
But even Kozdrowicki was saying it was the mate bonus issue that caused the loss.
Funnily enough, it was just a few hours before that when he entered in the famous Levy bet. After the loss, he was supposedly heard muttering about making a bad bet....
I think it doesn't effect most programs because most programs don't get into draws. They simply aren't in positions where there are multiple draws for them to randomly pick among.finding mate at move X and missing it at move X+1 to lose the game is not something that you can normally expect.
Uri
There's usually one drawing move at the root, and that's considered best.