Author: Dave Gomboc
Date: 22:46:34 03/25/99
Go up one level in this thread
On March 25, 1999 at 21:48:19, blass uri wrote: > >On March 25, 1999 at 17:05:22, Dave Gomboc wrote: > > >>I guess what you were saying was that such a position (where white is not >>winning and can blunder into a loss) does not exist in KQP vs KQ? I am not 100% >>sure of this, but maybe. :-) > >There are positions when white is not winning and can blunder into a loss but my >tests with Fritz showed no problem with them if they are KQP vs KQ. > >The only mistake that it can do in KQP vs KQ is by assuming that every promotion >not to a rook is a draw or by assuming that a promotion to a rook does not lose. > >Uri Perhaps they will begin using the Nalimov tablebases in the future to avoid these problems. :/ Dave Gomboc
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.