Author: Robin Smith
Date: 10:58:01 06/05/00
Go up one level in this thread
On June 03, 2000 at 19:24:08, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On June 03, 2000 at 10:41:58, blass uri wrote: > >>My observation is that programmers did not try to teach program some rules >>about endgames(for example about the fact that KRPPP vs KRPP is almost always a >>draw when all pawns are on the same side). >> >> >>I know no program that knows that this position is probably a draw(evaluation of >>less than 0.5 pawns advantage for white): >> >>[D]5rk1/6pp/8/8/8/8/5PPP/5RK1 w - - 0 1 >> >>I am interested to know if there is a programmer who try to teach his(her) >>program as much as possible about endgames by teaching it rules from chess books >>without caring about nps and about being better in games. >> >>Uri > > >I do this all the time. I just haven't gotten to this case yet. Nor the case >of Q+P's is _very_ difficult to win with a 1 P advantage. Q+P's can in many cases be one of the very EASIEST endings to win. But it is not the QUANTITY of pawns, but the QUALITY that matter most in Queen endings. Passed pawns, especially advanced passed pawns, are very dangerous in Queen endings. It is funny to watch computers play queen endings. They often go pawn hunting when they should be creating and pushing a passer as fast as they can. The thing that sometimes makes queen endings very tricky is the potential for perpetual check. Robin
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.