Here is a very old rule I have had in NOW:
If you are in a King and Pawns versus King and Pawns endgame AND
for each passed pawn, ignoring the other pawns, lookup the position of that passed pawn and the kings in a KPK database for both sides to move AND
if the position shows as a win for both sides to move, give a nice juicy bonus.
Is this safe? Can you think of exceptions? Can anyone test this with some KPK databases?
Mark
Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps databases? t
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:08 pm
-
- Posts: 778
- Joined: Sat Jul 01, 2006 7:11 am
Re: Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps database
Here is a won position that won't get the bonus.mjlef wrote:Here is a very old rule I have had in NOW:
If you are in a King and Pawns versus King and Pawns endgame AND
for each passed pawn, ignoring the other pawns, lookup the position of that passed pawn and the kings in a KPK database for both sides to move AND
if the position shows as a win for both sides to move, give a nice juicy bonus.
Is this safe? Can you think of exceptions? Can anyone test this with some KPK databases?
Mark
[D]8/8/2p5/P2k4/8/1K6/8/8 w - - 0 1
-
- Posts: 317
- Joined: Mon Jun 26, 2006 9:44 am
Re: Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps database
[D]8/4k3/6P1/4K3/1p6/p7/P7/8 w - - 0 1
Ignoring the Q-side pawns, White or Black to move would be a win for White. With the Q-side pawns, however, it is Black that will win with either side to move.
Ignoring the Q-side pawns, White or Black to move would be a win for White. With the Q-side pawns, however, it is Black that will win with either side to move.
Re: Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps database
Seems pretty safe. Not giving a bonus when it could isn't really a problem, giving one when it shouldn't, would be.mjlef wrote:Here is a very old rule I have had in NOW:
If you are in a King and Pawns versus King and Pawns endgame AND
for each passed pawn, ignoring the other pawns, lookup the position of that passed pawn and the kings in a KPK database for both sides to move AND
if the position shows as a win for both sides to move, give a nice juicy bonus.
Is this safe? Can you think of exceptions? Can anyone test this with some KPK databases?
Mark
From memory, a exception of the latter would be a Fine position where black has an advance h-pawn (h5 ?), white an advanced c pawn (c6 ?). The white king is not in the square of one of the pawns, the black king in the square of the white pawn. However, by black moving Kh8-g7,f6 it moves between the 2 pawns (not making a choice to which pawn it's moving) and gets a draw by reaching the square of a pawn.
Your heuristic would score it as a win for black.
Tony
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:08 pm
Re: Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps database
Thanks for the position. I did not mean for my rule to find all wins. By "safe" I meant if the rule thinks the position is likely to be a win, is it really a draw or loss. It is just meant to find some wins, not all of them. Of course, if you have some perfect K&Ps vs K&Ps rules, please send them to me!jwes wrote:Here is a won position that won't get the bonus.mjlef wrote:Here is a very old rule I have had in NOW:
If you are in a King and Pawns versus King and Pawns endgame AND
for each passed pawn, ignoring the other pawns, lookup the position of that passed pawn and the kings in a KPK database for both sides to move AND
if the position shows as a win for both sides to move, give a nice juicy bonus.
Is this safe? Can you think of exceptions? Can anyone test this with some KPK databases?
Mark
[D]8/8/2p5/P2k4/8/1K6/8/8 w - - 0 1
-
- Posts: 1494
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 2:08 pm
Re: Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps database
Great position. Maybe I can fix my rules by looking for pawns that could soon be passers for the other side, and not use the rule in this case. Thanks!rjgibert wrote:[D]8/4k3/6P1/4K3/1p6/p7/P7/8 w - - 0 1
Ignoring the Q-side pawns, White or Black to move would be a win for White. With the Q-side pawns, however, it is Black that will win with either side to move.
Mark
Re: Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps database
You probably mean the Reti position.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R%C3%A9ti
Ed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_R%C3%A9ti
Ed
Tony wrote:Seems pretty safe. Not giving a bonus when it could isn't really a problem, giving one when it shouldn't, would be.mjlef wrote:Here is a very old rule I have had in NOW:
If you are in a King and Pawns versus King and Pawns endgame AND
for each passed pawn, ignoring the other pawns, lookup the position of that passed pawn and the kings in a KPK database for both sides to move AND
if the position shows as a win for both sides to move, give a nice juicy bonus.
Is this safe? Can you think of exceptions? Can anyone test this with some KPK databases?
Mark
From memory, a exception of the latter would be a Fine position where black has an advance h-pawn (h5 ?), white an advanced c pawn (c6 ?). The white king is not in the square of one of the pawns, the black king in the square of the white pawn. However, by black moving Kh8-g7,f6 it moves between the 2 pawns (not making a choice to which pawn it's moving) and gets a draw by reaching the square of a pawn.
Your heuristic would score it as a win for black.
Tony
-
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Wed Jun 06, 2007 10:01 am
- Location: United States
- Full name: Mike Leany
Re: Is this rule safe (how has K&Ps vs K&Ps database
Mark,mjlef wrote:Here is a very old rule I have had in NOW:
If you are in a King and Pawns versus King and Pawns endgame AND
for each passed pawn, ignoring the other pawns, lookup the position of that passed pawn and the kings in a KPK database for both sides to move AND
if the position shows as a win for both sides to move, give a nice juicy bonus.
Is this safe? Can you think of exceptions? Can anyone test this with some KPK databases?
Mark
What if ignored pawns block a king from getting to a passed pawn in time (to defend or capture it) but the king would be able to get to it if they weren't there? I'm not 100% certain that it could be a problem in the positions you describe, but it sounds plausible, so you may want to look at it to see if it's possible.
Mike Leany