Author: John Merlino
Date: 18:53:49 08/10/02
Here is a position from a game that Slater and I discussed in a different thread: [D]3R4/8/8/8/2K5/6p1/3p1rk1/8 b - - 0 78 In that game, Black was obviously using EGTBs and played 78...d1=Q, leading to an EGTB mate in 22 moves (including the promotion). However, the more natural looking move, Kf1, leads to a mate in 14, as Chessmaster 9000 shows on a PIII-733: Time Depth Score Positions Moves 0:00 1/5 -8.88 14450 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 g2 80.Rd4 g1=Q 81.Rxd2 Rxd2 82.Kxd2 0:00 2/6 -9.00 26438 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 g2 80.Rxd2 Rxd2 81.Kxd2 g1=Q 82.Kd3 Qc5 83.Ke4 Ke2 0:00 3/7 -9.00 74581 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 g2 80.Rxd2 Rxd2 81.Kxd2 g1=Q 82.Kd3 Qc5 83.Ke4 Ke2 0:02 4/8 -11.19 264563 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 Ke1 80.Kc4 g2 81.Re8+ Re2 82.Rg8 d1=Q 83.Kc5 Kf1 0:05 5/9 -13.17 520117 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 Ke1 80.Kc4 g2 81.Re8+ Re2 82.Rd8 g1=Q 83.Rxd2 Kxd2 84.Kd5 0:15 6/10 -13.30 1610302 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 Ke1 80.Kc4 g2 81.Re8+ Re2 82.Rd8 g1=Q 83.Rd5 Qg4+ 84.Kc5 Qc8+ 85.Kb5 d1=Q 86.Rxd1+ Kxd1 0:46 7/11 -13.35 4752680 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 Ke1 80.Kc4 g2 81.Re8+ Re2 82.Rd8 g1=Q 83.Rd5 Qg4+ 84.Kc5 Qc8+ 85.Kb5 Qb7+ 86.Kc5 Qc7+ 87.Kb5 d1=Q 88.Rxd1+ Kxd1 3:06 8/12 -15.25 19391217 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 Ke1 80.Kc4 g2 81.Re8+ Kf1 82.Rd8 g1=Q 83.Rd4 Qg8+ 84.Kc5 Qg5+ 85.Kc4 Rf4 86.Kb3 Rxd4 9:45 9/13 -Mate14 62576834 78...Kf1 79.Kc3 Ke1 80.Kc4 g2 81.Re8+ Re2 82.Rd8 g1=Q 83.Rd6 Qg8+ 84.Kb4 Qb8+ 85.Kc4 Qc7+ 86.Kb5 Re5+ 87.Kb4 Qc5+ 88.Kb3 Re3+ 89.Rd3 Rxd3+ 90.Kb2 Qc1+ 91.Ka2 Ra3# Note that the first capture is 23 ply away, making it very difficult (impossible?) to find it via tablebases. Can anybody else find the mate faster? So, SPEAKING STRICTLY AESTHETICALLY, what do you think of EGTBs when used in game play? When we decided to implement them for Chessmaster 9000, our Producer (who was a class A player before he gave up taking the game "seriously") stated that he was, aesthetically speaking, strongly against them. He even went so far as to say that it was grossly unfair to use them in matches against humans, for obvious reasons. He also stated that something to the equivalent of "chess engines and opening books are an art form, but endgame databases are just plain boring -- and chess should be artistic and exciting". What say all of you? As for me, adding support for them was very useful in giving the user more ways to improve his/her game, and that meant much more to me (as a game designer) than just waiting for the game to get down to enough pieces for the EGTBs to kick in and quickly decide the game. But, then again, the first time I saw "mate in 35", I thought it was pretty cool.... :-) For reference, the other thread (with an interesting sacrifice) can be seen here: http://www.talkchess.com/forums/1/message.html?244901 jm
This page took 0.01 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.