Author: Uri Blass
Date: 03:46:22 12/18/05
Go up one level in this thread
On December 18, 2005 at 06:27:26, Dan Honeycutt wrote: >On December 18, 2005 at 05:20:12, Uri Blass wrote: > >>On December 18, 2005 at 05:12:15, Robert Hollay wrote: >> >>>On December 17, 2005 at 18:48:15, Fernando Villegas wrote: >>> >>>>Inspired by Pablo Restrepo I have begun a series of experiments in order to see >>>>if the heuristic of top chess engines are afected by the lack of some pieces. >>>>In my first serie of experiments, I left Rybka without nothing but the King and >>>>his pawns. I, of course, kept all the pieces. >>>>Then I won 100 games in a row. >>>>Tomorrow I will submit other engines to the same trial. >>>>If everybody here colaborate we could finish these experiences lot earlier. >>>>Steven Blincoe could do the same with Chessmaster 5000, his only software. >>>>Everybody according his means. >>>> >>>> >>>>Scientific Regards >>>>fernando >>> >>>Hi Fdo, >>> >>> Taking away pieces from a poor engine is a cowardly act. >>>Unlike you, I made Rybka even stronger, giving her another king instead of the >>>queen. IMHO two kings reign better than only one, particularly when there are >>>no women to chime in. >> >>No >> >>The best is to play without a king. >>The opponent will never be able to checkmate you so you cannot lose the game. >> >>king is a disadvantage in chess and replacing a queen that is big advantage by a >>king that is significant disadvantage is a very bad deal. >> >>Uri > > >I tried that once, Uri, but it didn't work. Once the computer wiped all my >pieces off the board I had no way to move and ended up losing on time. > >Best >Dan H. Based on the chess rules it was a draw by stalemate. If you have no legal move and the position is not checkmate then it is a stalemate. The fact that you lost on time changes nothing. You drew even if you did not know it. 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.