Author: Sune Larsson
Date: 05:50:21 12/26/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 26, 2005 at 08:20:54, Alex Shalamanov wrote: >On December 26, 2005 at 07:53:23, Uri Blass wrote: > >>I think that you are wrong. >> >>Fruit is probably better in the endgame than shredder >>I have example from my correspondence games and I plan to post it after the game >>is finished. >> >>Uri > >You're wrong here. Shredder is much better than Fruit even w/o Nalimov >tablebases. It's just got more endgame knowledge. You didn't convince me anyway. > >Alexander Wrong here and wrong there - and everybody just trying to win the argument. Why not settle this once and for all by making a *Ratinglist for Endings*? There are a lot of testers out there with good hardware so I think it will be possible. Actually I mailed Heinz van Kempen about this. Such a ratinglist would be very interesting, IMO. As a start I suggest the Nunn positions. There are 10 of them but n:o 3 is not valid since there are only 5 pieces in that position. Short description: 1+4 are rook endings 2 is pawn ending 5 is queen ending 6 is knight ending 7 is bishop vs knight ending 8 is opposite coloured bishops ending 9 is bishop ending (same colour) 10 is rooks+opposite coloured bishops ending I suggest 40 moves in 40 minutes. Additional positions are of course possible - like "good knight vs bad bishop" - themes like "rook behind the pawn" - "activity in rookendings" etc. I have played several games from NunnEnding1 - and you'll be surprised of how revealing this simple position is! [D]8/1ppr1kp1/p1p4p/8/8/5P2/PPP1RKPP/8 w - - 0 1 /S
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.