Author: Bruce Moreland
Date: 14:55:04 09/28/00
Go up one level in this thread
On September 28, 2000 at 00:28:38, Robert Hyatt wrote: >On September 27, 2000 at 15:26:37, Bruce Moreland wrote: > >>On September 27, 2000 at 12:21:30, Peter Kappler wrote: >> >>>On September 27, 2000 at 09:38:02, Robert Hyatt wrote: >> >>>>I use the term "dead drawn" for positions where there is no hope to win. For >>>>an example, set up any krb vs kr with Crafty and play it out. You'll then >>>>appreciate the dead drawn description. >>>> >>>>:) >> >>>Nice try, but "dead drawn" is supposed to be a general description of a >>>position. Factoring in the strength of the players just adds an unnecessary >>>assymetry. For example, if I have the rook, and Crafty has the rook+bishop, >>>suddenly it's not a dead draw. >> >>He is right, Bob. If you had a 32-man table, black probably holds regardless of >>what white does, so the initial position would be "dead" drawn. >> >>A dead draw is a KRP vs KR with a pawn blockaded by the king. There may be dead >>draws in KRB vs KR, but the typical position isn't dead, it's worth playing out. >> >>bruce > > >I have seen hundreds of drawn KRP vs KR positions won by Crafty's "swindle >mode". I don't consider a blunder by the opponent as changing the original >"dead drawn" description... because I know that against a computer with >tablebases (and most are now using them) these draws will end as draws. Ditto >for playing against GMs. What I am getting at is that this is a weird argument because you are defending your apparently careless use of the term "dead". It is not true that any ending drawn via tables is a dead draw. That is all I think that is being argued. The specific example is KRB vs KR, which is drawn in most cases, and perhaps there are some dead draws in it, but the ending as a whole is not dead drawn. bruce
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.