Author: Bob Durrett
Date: 06:36:53 01/06/03
The concept of "trading down to a won endgame" and similar ideas such as avoiding a dangerous attack by trading down to an equal or slightly inferior endgame seem conceptually simple. Endgame knowledge is available everywhere. For example: The recent publication, "Fundamental Chess Endings" by Karsten Muller and Frank Lamprecht, copyright 2001, Gambit Publications, Inc., ISBN 1901983536, includes a table at the back of the book titled "Table of Computer Database Results for Pawnless Endings." This table provides "endgame knowledge" information, which could be [and probably is] used by chess engine programmers. Similar information appears elsewhere in the written chess literature. A chess engine position evaluation could check to see if the position matches up with one of the known endgame types. [This might take special dedicated software.] Then the knowledge could be used to determine whether or not to exchange down to that endgame. I'm sure [??] that modern chess programs do something like that, although perhaps not aimed at making an "exchange down or not to exchange down" type of "decision." The idea that a position would receive a numerical value is common. But is it really necessary that search choices be based solely on such numerical evaluations? Perhaps modern chess engines are not that simplistic? In summary: I don't see why a chess engine should have any trouble at all in positions where exchanging down to an endgame is indicated. What am I missing? Bob D.
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.