Mate in twelve and the point indicators maxed out, but computer analysis says play may have continue
Sort:
May 10, 2017
0
#3
Sorry for the confusion. sometimes I do not articulate myself well. I did a computer analysis of the game I played, and the continually self updating bar graph that displays which player is winning based on points. The one in the game that I played, was maxed out showing my opponent was clearly winning. I resigned and performed a computer analysis of the game. When it reached the point where I resigned, the game was indicated to be by way of prompt, that mate was inevitable in 12 moves. However the final analysis concluded that play may have been able to resume. I was thinking that would be a conflict because, it also told me checkmate was inevitable.
May 10, 2017
0
#5
The continued play is just the line leading to checkmate
If a game I played ended in 45. Qa7#, then the engine would've said "Play may have continued 45. Qa7+"
May 10, 2017
0
#7
An engine can calculate forced mate in 12 in an endgame like that easily. Any play that deviates from the engine line will result in a faster mate.
May 10, 2017
0
#8
Who even looks at that engine stuff while the game is going? Keep playing unless it looks hopeless, people make mistakes and the last mistake usually loses.
May 10, 2017
0
#9
Engines assume perfect play by the opponent...
If an engine declares mate in 12, that's mate in 12 if the defenders delays it perfectly for as long as possible. There is no possible sequence of moves that will prolong it any further.
Engines can't calculate the entire game tree, that's not how they work. That's why they can't declare mate or draw at the opening, they only do so when they have calculated every variation till the end. Endgames are also easier for engines to calculate deeper because there are fewer pieces.
If an engine declares mate in 12, that's mate in 12 if the defenders delays it perfectly for as long as possible. There is no possible sequence of moves that will prolong it any further.
Engines can't calculate the entire game tree, that's not how they work. That's why they can't declare mate or draw at the opening, they only do so when they have calculated every variation till the end. Endgames are also easier for engines to calculate deeper because there are fewer pieces.
May 10, 2017
0
#11
universityofpawns wrote:
Who even looks at that engine stuff while the game is going? Keep playing unless it looks hopeless, people make mistakes and the last mistake usually loses.
Great point! It's not allowed to look at databases, etc. even in daily games when you're so advanced in a game mate is in order. If you're messing with an engine, why are you losing? In any case, how can you feel good about winning, or even playing well in a loss, if they aren't really your moves? They're the computers moves or you're being guided by an engine telling you to go ahead, make that move because you'll have a +4.56 pawn equivalents advantage, in which case you're not playing your side alone.
May 10, 2017
0
#12
I do the analysis after the game of course. God lord mate. Obviously, that's how I would loose.
JadedJackel wrote:
Play could have continued until mate happened which is what the computer is telling you
Sorry for the confusion. sometimes I do not articulate myself well. I did a computer analysis of the game I played, and the continually self updating bar graph that displays which player is winning based on points. The one in the game that I played, was maxed out showing my opponent was clearly winning. I resigned and performed a computer analysis of the game. When it reached the point where I resigned, the game was indicated to be by way of prompt, that mate was inevitable in 12 moves. However the final analysis concluded that play may have been able to resume. I was thinking that would be a conflict because, it also told me checkmate was inevitable.
hari2017 wrote:
hari2017 wrote:
1818-1828271 wrote:
An engine can calculate forced mate in 12 in an endgame like that easily. Any play that deviates from the engine line will result in a faster mate.
why would the engine pick longer mate path, if any deviation would mean a disaster for the loosing player? then why not just say "mate in 8", for example?
i mean, using that logic, i can say "mate in 40", even vefore move 1, and i'll probably be right (cause any diviation from my "plan" will mean quicker checkmate).
I called you out for this before on another thread where you implied that nobody can know if mate will occur in X moves...if you don't know what the concept of forced mate actually means, then don't comment on these types of threads. You cannot guarantee "mate in 40" or even a mate for either side at all, so it's not a forced mate. A forced mate in 12 means that no matter what moves are made, one side will mate the other with best play and mate will occur in 12 moves or less...and yes, both engines and humans are capable of determining that forced mates exist...and no, you can't wriggle out of a forced mate even if you think you're some kind of chess wunderkind.
Sorry for the lengthy topic title, but is there something I am missing. Thanks in advance for any insight.