# Chess: glee v Mosier comments

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264>\
**Category:** The Game Room\
**Created:** [December 6, 2011, 4:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264 "2011-12-06T16:07:03Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 2\
**Page:** 6

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TATG](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/50afbb/32.png) [@TATG](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TATG)\
**Post date:** [April 3, 2012, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264/101 "2012-04-03T21:07:20Z")

</div>

> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Honestly, what tipped me off was the supposedly huge savings from truncating the search at an advantage of 5.12 . Two problems with that: First, by the time you get to an advantage that extreme, the game’s not going to last all _that_ much longer, and it’s going to be easy to find winning moves (you don’t need to find _all_ of the moves the winning player has available, just one of them).

It really doesn’t have to be much longer to be too much. Pick some numbers that you think are reasonable, number of moves left in the game, and number of moves per position, and test your hypothesis. One could also test your hypothesis by seeing how long it (generally) takes a computer to turn a 5.12 evaluation into a forced mate evaluation.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\
**Post date:** [April 4, 2012, 12:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264/102 "2012-04-04T12:35:17Z")

</div>

I am 100% sure it’s a joke.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/chess-glee-v-mosier-comments/605264.md?page=5)