Author: Uri Blass
Date: 05:11:21 10/01/05
Go up one level in this thread
On October 01, 2005 at 07:49:07, Tord Romstad wrote: >On September 30, 2005 at 18:51:23, Jack Lad wrote: > >>Interesting question: What is the material value of the first king? >> >>Kings have the material value of four pawns if we ignore their royal vaue. > >Four pawns seems like a reasonable estimate when ignoring their royal value, >but in the game we discuss we can't really ignore the royal value for the >first king. Losing the first king puts the player at a serious disadvantage, >because the loss of the single remaining king would be fatal. You can no >longer afford to take as big risks with respect to king safety as you could >while still having two kings. > >Analysing some basic endgames could be fun. Is KQ vs KK a win? My guess is >that it is almost always a draw if the two defending kings are on adjacent >squares, but that the attacking side usually wins if the defending kings are >further apart. > >Obviously we have to make some rule decisions before such questions make >sense. I suggest that positions where the defending side has no legal moves >and at least one of the defending kings are in check are defined as mate >rather than stalemate. Otherwise the game would probably be too drawish. > >Tord If you want the game to be less drawish then maybe it is better to decide that not being able to prevent capturing one of the kings in the next move finish the game. In this case additional king may have negative value because the side with the additional king need to protect not only against normal checkmate but also against forking both kings that can win the game. Uri
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.