Author: blass uri
Date: 03:04:34 04/04/00
Go up one level in this thread
On April 04, 2000 at 00:00:41, KarinsDad wrote: >It occurs to me that the example that Jeremiah gave us in that thread could >still result in a loss for the KNP side of KNNPKNP. For example (and I did not >check this with tablebases, I am making an illustration here and hopefully, I >set it up correctly): > >[D]8/n1PK3p/k6N/8/6N1/8/8/8 w - - > >Now, even though this may result in a mate for white after c8(Q)+, it may take >more than 50 moves to do it. However, the idea is that the knight at h6 could >blockade the pawn until about move 40 or so, then it could come attack the king, >then when the pawn is pushed, it could go back and blockade again for a moment. >The 50 move counter would be reset since the pawn was pushed and then the knight >could come back to attack the king again. > >Now, this probably does not work for this particular example. I just put it here >to illustrate the idea. > >But it seems to me that the BEST play would take into account the 50 move rule >COMBINED WITH the shortest mate, even if that takes longer due to reseting the >50 move rule counter. I do not see how to combine these things. I think the right way is to use distance to conversion tablebases when distance of more than 50 is a draw when you have no information about distance to mate. If you want to know distance to mate with taking into account the 50 move rule then you should also consider the history of the game because it is important to know the number of plies with no capture and no pawn moves and in this case the size of the tablebases is too large. Uri
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.