Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 18:44:23 09/17/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 17, 2000 at 15:43:06, guy haworth wrote: >Thanks for your reply. > >Certainly, endgame tables (EGTs) specific to the 50-move rule can be computed by >recomputing the Distance-to-Conversion tables, marking everything deeper than >100 plies as a draw. > >The objection to this is > > (a) FIDE could change '50' to '45' (unlikely), and > > (b) it is still worth knowing that there a win in 51: the opponent might be >fallible. > > >Instead, I proposed, in the ICGA_Journal, a new metric called 'DTR' or "Depth by >The Rule". If a position can be won under a k-move rule but not under a >k-1-move rule, it has DTR = k. > >The DTR tables are not as easy to compute as the DTC and DTM ones but they can >be done. > Interesting, too bad I am not a ICCA member. I might become one in the future, and will definitely look for your papers. >At the same time, I conjectured that positions might be found in KQP(a5-6)KQ and >KBBKNN which would demonstrate the need for a DTR table. It may be that the >maxDTC/DTM position is one such. > >It has DTC = 38 and DTM = 106 ... which is not to say that the KBBKN phase is >bound to be 68 moves deep. > >However, it is clear that White cannot just aim to minimise DTM. White has to >'invest' more effort in Phase 1 to reach a shorter Phase 2. As White has only >12 spare moves for this, there may not be enough spare time. > >Should the maxDTC/DTM KBBKNN position not be a '50-win', there are probably >KBBKNN positions en route which can be won with DTR but not with DTC/DTM alone. > >Why 'Marimer' by the way? :-) > It is "Marimar", not "Marimer". It is a Spanish female name that brings me happy memories (: >G José.
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.