Author: Dieter Buerssner
Date: 18:26:32 10/14/02
Go up one level in this thread
On October 14, 2002 at 21:09:42, martin fierz wrote: >On October 14, 2002 at 21:02:53, Dieter Buerssner wrote: >>I remember one game of my engine, where a pieceless 6-men EGTB could have been I meant "pawnless" insead of "pieceless". But, no doubt, you figured this out yourself from the context. >you are probably right that things like KR+minor - K+2minors may have some >interesting positions. i would have thought that since K+minor - K+rook is a >draw (in all "normal" cases), the additional minor pieces help the weaker side >and make most of these endgames very drawish - but perhaps that is a bit >superficial :-) I think, this is indeed an interesting question. I actually started a thread with a very similar question here. And, my engine makes the scores of such endgames drawish (but not 0.0). I believe now, it is wrong. From reading followups to my questions, and from looking up positions from Thompson's site. The rule "one minor piece more, without a pawn, will not win" seems not to be correct, for more complicated cases. It is correct for KRBKR, KRNKR, and Q for R. With 6 pieces, even the advantage of rook vs. minor piece seems often enough to win. >my assessment "not interesting" was aimed more toward the probability of these >things ever turning up, compared to 6-piece endgames with pawns. I agree, that all this has very little practical relevance. But now and then, it can happen. Of course, 6-men TBs with pawns will be much more interesting. Regards, Dieter
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.