Author: José de Jesús García Ruvalcaba
Date: 08:36:26 04/17/99
Go up one level in this thread
On April 16, 1999 at 20:10:07, Dave Gomboc wrote: >On April 16, 1999 at 19:53:24, Paul Massie wrote: > >>For what it's worth, I think if you could codify in some manner algorithms for >>playing nearly perfect endgames there'd be a lot of chess players eager to >>understand those algorithms and try to apply them. Although I may be in a >>minority here, I do not believe there is anyone in the world today, Kasparov >>included, who truly understands this issue. That's not to say you shouldn't >>attempt it, because attempting what has never been done is how fundamental >>progress is achieved, but I do believe the size of the task should be clearly >>understood. >>Paul > >We have an example of this in the case of KBB vs KN. The bottom line for >humans? "The idea is to use mating threats and zugzwang to force the win of the >knight. A good first step is forcing the knight and the king to separate. This >is always possible: even the (defender-desirable) fortress demonstrated by >Horwitz and Kling in 1851 can be broken (black king on g2, knight on f2/g3, >white king and bishops somewhere). However, it takes very accurate calculation >to do this properly against best play." > >Did I miss anything really helpful that humans can use OTB? > >Dave The fortess position is with the black knight at g2 and the black king at f2/g3 (you interchanged them). The white king is "somewhere", but not atacking the black knight. José.
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.