Author: guy haworth
Date: 11:04:14 02/26/00
Go up one level in this thread
I agree with Eugene's comments. But to take it further: Peter Karrer has worked with EN's help to do KQQKQP~ and KQPKQP~, salami-style, one pawn-formation at a time, where ~ denotes a variant of chess allowing P=Q only. These tables only required KQQKQQ + available 5-man tables for subgames. Peter showed that only 0.09% of KQQKQP(d2) positions change value of P=N is allowed, and yes, there are positions that change from a win for White to a win for Black. Hence, I expect practical o.t.b. players will accept information this near perfect 'pro tem'. Therefore, the way forward is to do KQQQKQQ when a big enough 64-bit architecture machine is available. It's a factor of 12 smaller than the table for KQRNKQR (but that's still 5x bigger than KRNKNN for example) and Eugene's index-economies work best with lots of Queens on the board. In its favour is the lack of symmetry: you can't see Black lasting that long except that Black can capture into the maximal wtm KQQKQQ ending. So maximal btm Black losses could be deeper than maximal wtm Wins. Once you have KQQQKQQ, you can do KQQQKQP~ as Peter did, ditching a factor of 4 because of the P but winning a factor of 24 because of the fixed Pan position. So that gets you to an ending smaller than KRNKNN which is do-able now. So KQQQKQQ is the next 'big one': Guy
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.