![]() The downside to this method is that it is sensitive to the cutoff evaluation chosen, the engine accuracy, and the engine stability. 6 the next, quite probably the player moved from a won position to a drawn position, missing a theoretical forced mate. ![]() ![]() The number of missed mates would then be the number of times the computer evaluation crossed that cutoff line from high to low - e.g., if the evaluation was 1.4 one move and. Since a pawn is generally considered enough to win, a score like 1.0 or 1.1 might be a reasonable choice. You could probably get a reasonable estimate for the number of missed mates in a given game by running the game through a good chess engine and setting an appropriate cutoff evaluation, where any evaluation above that score is considered a won position for that player and any evaluation below that score is considered a draw or a loss. The key insight is that a forced mate exists if and only if one of the players has a won position, even if the horizon for that forced mate is so far out as to be effectively impossible to compute. There does, however, exist a theoretical answer: the number of missed mates by a player in any game is precisely the number of instances in which that player had a winning position at one time but later the position became drawn or lost. Is there any upper bounds on the number of moves required? Would you consider a "mate in 53" to be a missed mate, even if no one, human or computer, had the computational power to actually find such a mate (but maybe in 100 years a computer could show a forced mating sequence from that position)?Īssuming that you would consider a missed "mate in 53" to be a missed mate, then the answer is that no one can give you a precise number, for the simple reason that no one can determine which situations contain such a mate. This depends entirely your horizon for what you consider a missed mate. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |