Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 09:03:40 10/14/98
Go up one level in this thread
On October 13, 1998 at 17:35:34, Robert Hyatt wrote: > >After reading this thread, I decided to run a test myself. I started >off with 20 games of crafty vs crafty, white having KQ and no tablebases, >black having tablebases. At 20 seconds per move, this ended in 20 wins >for white which surprised me. I took several different positions (20 in >total) most of which were mate in 30 or greater and gave crafty 20 secs/move >using 1 cpu on my ALR. All wins. I didn't expect this. > >I then repeated this at 10 secs/move. All wins. > >I then repeated it at 5 secs/move. All wins. I was going to try 1 sec >but decided that to the computer, this is far easier than I thought. It >seems that the simple heuristic drive king to the edge, then to the >corner, is enough. It didn't play it perfectly, but it never slipped more >than 2 moves from optimal at any single move. And when it started off at >mate in 34, the "game" never went past 40 moves. > >So, I retract my original feeling, that KQ vs KR is hard with the KR >side having a database. It seems it is a "trivial" ending regardless of >having them or not. > >Most surprising... I tried it myself, to mate crafty with KQKR. The first times I ran out of moves when I had just cornered crafty's king, but now I am getting it (I still can not mate in under 40 moves). I must admit that I may take over 20 seconds a move in average (: This is an area in which computers are excellent training partners, you can practice the most elementary mates, or the difficult ones (like KBNK), against a tough defense. I
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.