Author: GuyHaworth
Date: 16:37:07 05/17/04
Go up one level in this thread
The Kings are never adjacent because 'positioning' the pieces starts with Kk, and these are explicitly enumerated. Actually, this might be achieved as a specific case of the general 'no unblockable checks' rule. The subtlety comes in calculating how many squares are left to position a piece (or set of like pieces) on, e.g. for the 'R' in KQRK after the Kk and Q have been placed for wtm positions. This is done per Kk-positioning and not after the Q is placed. The R cannot occupy a checking position adjacent to the K, but the program does not assume that the Q is not occupying one of these squares [which it could if the chessic intelligence was built in]. Therefore, the program calculates that there is one more square available to the R than there actually is. I can't remember whether this means there is one unused position in the index, or whether the R is placed, on one occasion, on top of the Q and then this position is made 'broken'. Some experimenting with index-numbers and positions would reveal what goes on here. But I think you will find there is some slight wasteage of this kind in such endgames as KQRK where there are different types of piece on one side and/or the other. KBNK would have the same problem, as one has to assume that the B is on a N-checking square which it would in fact sometimes legally be. g
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.