Moderator: Ras
Nope, I found the optimal line within minutes. You can't do better than a line that mates the opponent 100% of the time. Anything to do with mating in fewer moves is unnecessary.
I might as well talk to a rock ...Ovyron wrote: ↑Mon Feb 24, 2020 12:32 amNope, I found the optimal line within minutes. You can't do better than a line that mates the opponent 100% of the time. Anything to do with mating in fewer moves is unnecessary.
If you don't believe me, we can try it out, we play Zenmastur's position, I play moves that I found in 20 seconds (not the moves I have now) and you try to defend it. If with 20 seconds I beat any defense that you provide then it's optimal. Fewest moves to mate aren't optimal, they're overkill.
Suppose that my analysis method allowed me to play perfect chess, by telling me magically if a position was drawn, won for white or won for black. All I'd need to do is check if the position after the move I'm going to make is lost and avoid it, or won if my opponent has blundered, and then all my moves are perfect chess moves. Would you still say that I needed better hardware?
It's a bad argument. Though it's useful in general to think about "bugs" as totally separate from algorithmic flaws, in this discussion that just waves away and excuses incorrect claims as "just a bug". We can't just assume this is something like a misplaced bracket.
It isn't needed, it's there for convenience. Many engines don't know they're mating, and don't care, they just show some +100.00 score and are done with it, the only thing that matters is that they play winning moves.
You see, this is the point in long discussions where you start changing arguments, contradicting yourself, abandoning all logic, etc.