On 11/30/2010 01:47 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
> On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 09:10 +0100, Joost 't Hart wrote:
>> On 11/29/2010 02:44 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Good that it works a bit more to your liking now!
>>
>>
>>
>>> I also did an analysis with Stockfish, and I am noticing one stran
On Mon, 2010-11-29 at 09:10 +0100, Joost 't Hart wrote:
> On 11/29/2010 02:44 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> Good that it works a bit more to your liking now!
>
>
>
> > I also did an analysis with Stockfish, and I am noticing one strange
> > behavior. In the annotation, it's showing a
On 11/29/2010 02:44 AM, Matthew Twomey wrote:
Hi,
Good that it works a bit more to your liking now!
> I also did an analysis with Stockfish, and I am noticing one strange
> behavior. In the annotation, it's showing a Mate-in-X that is one more
> that it should be. For example, it's showing:
>
