Author: Ricardo Gibert
Date: 00:45:24 01/09/03
Go up one level in this thread
On January 08, 2003 at 18:28:46, Miguel A. Ballicora wrote: >On January 08, 2003 at 18:21:15, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >>On January 07, 2003 at 20:40:41, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >> >>>On January 07, 2003 at 20:14:11, Edward Seid wrote: >>> >>>>On January 07, 2003 at 19:45:04, Ricardo Gibert wrote: >>>> >>>>>What's subtle about it? Black draws easily thanks to the 50-move rule rendering >>>>>most of this analysis as irrelevant. >>>> >>>>The 50-move rule was created by tournament directors and organizers to address >>>>practical tournament play, before computer use was widespread. After computer >>>>analysis proved that some endings could still be won but would take longer than >>>>50-moves, certain special case endings were allowed to extend beyond 50 moves in >>>>tournament play. >>> >>> >>>BTW, this is not correct. Exceptions were made before the advent of EGTBs i.e >>>KNNKP. >>> >> >>I don't recall any exceptions prior to Ken Thompson's results. As he found >>exceptions, FIDE added them to the list. But GM players revolted and all the >>exceptions were once again removed. > >Exceptions were already in the 70's (or before) based on Trompowsky's on KNNKP. Alexey Troitzky! >They were 80 moves and depended on the position of the black pawn. >Those studies were pretty old. > >Miguel > > > > >> >> >>> >>>>The current analysis shows that in the case of KRRPKQ, with perfect play from >>>>both sides, that the superior side could take MUCH LONGER than 50 moves. >>>> >>>>So I disagree with you when you say that a forced winning line is irrelevant >>>>because of a rule that humans created to expedite human tournament play.
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.