Author: Vincent Lejeune
Date: 16:23:56 10/08/00
Go up one level in this thread
On October 08, 2000 at 18:45:29, Vincent Diepeveen wrote:
>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!
As I remember about of corresponding square : you can use it when opposite side
have 2 weak points to look at with his king; there's a "crossroad" square and if
you reached this square when opposite side is on the wrong square, his king have
to choice to guard one or the other weak pointbut cannot anymore block the 2
ways. As i see in this example black king reached d6 at the wrong moment
(because white forced it) and white king go to e4 "to zugzwang" black side; as a
human you can analyse it in reverse ("I've to reach e4 when he's on d6, so from
what's previous square i've I to go from, and move before, and move before ...")
and first move place your king on the corresponding square where the opponent is
right now, so he can't be on his right square after his move...
I hope i've been clear ! :o)
Don't hesitate to ask more explanations ;)
>
>>>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.