Author: Vincent Diepeveen
Date: 15:45:29 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 07, 2000 at 21:45:03, Vincent Lejeune wrote: >On October 07, 2000 at 19:32:18, Vincent Diepeveen wrote: > >>On October 07, 2000 at 15:16:17, Peter McKenzie wrote: >> >>>The other controversial positon: >>> >>>[D]8/1k6/p4p2/2p2P2/p1P2P2/2P5/P1K5/8 w - - >>> >>>Kc1 is analysed using the 'theory of corresponding squares', something I don't >>>really understand :-) I haven't analysed this one at all, I will just quote the >>>main variation: >> >>i have wasted a full evening to go to a meeting where the writers >>about the 'corresponding square' theory were there. >> >>it's all big nonsense. the problem is to figure out what the corresponding >>squares are. it's like saying: "find best move M and play perfect >>chess". Now the problem is to find move M. So is the problem to >>find the corresponding squares. There is no algorithm for it at all. >>After wasting hours of talk to the authors who themselves aren't strong >>chessplayers at all, they couldn't give any algorithm for it, and it >>all appeared to come down to how well you can define squares as being >>the corresponding square! >> >>>1.Kc1! Kc7 2.Kd1! Kd7 3.Ke1 Kc7 4.Kf2 Kd8 5.Ke2 Ke8 6.Kd3 Kd7 7.Ke3 Kd6 8.Ke4 >>>"(forcing the pawn to advance)" a3 9.Kd3 a5 10.Kc2! a4 "The posiiton on the >>>Q-side is blocked; a quadratic system with non-ambiguous rear (711) now >>>operates." Go figure! 11.Kc2! Ke7 12.Kd3 Kc6 13.Ke2 Kd6 14.Kf2 Kd7 15.Ke3 Ke7 >>>16.Kf3 and wins >> >>that's 16 moves. I'm searching 40 plies. that's 20 moves. So i see >>4 moves deeper as this. Also i have made afew moves and then also searched >>40 plies. that's like 23 ply in the diagram position. So obviously this >>trick isn't the problem here! >> >>>I didn't play thru. that variation, but clearly its at least 31ply and white >>>hasn't even captured a pawn yet! Let me see, finished with white K on f3, so it >>>needs another 3 moves at the very least to capture c5 so this problem looks like >>>it is at the VERY least 34ply deep and probably more. > > >Finding "corresponding squares" is all about zugzwang, that's may be why your >program don't find it ... i don't nullmove in pawnendgame, so it's peanut to see, but that's not the point exactly. what i said was: corresponding squares are hard to define. suppose i say: "black is better because score is less as zero." I call this the 'diepeveen-black' theory and write big crap about this theory, but i forget to mention how i figure out the score is less as zero. Basicaly i've shifted the problem to finding the score. That's what happens with corresponding squares too. They could be dutch scientists! >>I searched if i count the moves made first with it 44 plies or something >>and don't see a win at all. >> >>>cheers, >>>Peter
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.