Author: Jeremiah Penery
Date: 12:14:57 04/03/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 03, 2000 at 10:54:21, KarinsDad wrote: >On April 03, 2000 at 06:10:21, Jeremiah Penery wrote: > >>There is a problem with tablebases. >> >>No, they don't produce wrong answers. And no, they don't make engines play >>weaker. The problem is that engines would rather be -9 and not in TBs than see >>mate against itself and be in TBs. I have one good example, from a game my >>modified Crafty played on ICC, and I may try to find it, if possible. But I do >>remember what happened: >> >>I had something like a knight and a pawn, and my opponent had 2 knights and a >>pawn, about to promote. I had the choice to let him promote, and have a score >>of about -9. I would easily lose. My other choice was to sacrifice my knight >>for his pawn, and enter a lost KNNKP endgame, somewhere around Mate in 75. I >>would not easily lose this, unless my opponent had the TB, in which case it >>could be a draw by 50-moves. > > >Excuse me, but what am I missing? > >Isn't a KNNKP ending almost always a draw (assuming nothing special) if the side >with the pawn wants it to be? Cannot the side with the pawn force the draw >(regardless of 50 move rule) since KNNK is a draw? > >What do you mean by a "lost KNNKP endgame"? > >KarinsDad :) The tablebases prove that it was a lost endgame. Period. :) It was something like mate in 75 for the knights. The knights can just ignore the pawn, and keep giving check. When they push the king to the corner, they can eventually give mate, because the free pawn prevents stalemate. Other than that, I'm not sure.
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.