Note that "supporting the theory" is a far cry from "proving the theory" which is the key problem here....Uri Blass wrote:What is the average number of moves that top programs need to win with black when white is without knight b1 against them selves?duncan wrote:a top gm playing komodo with knight handicap

or 2 computers one with a knight handicap but both with access to a 32 piece tablebase

and how many moves is the former ?

I believe that it is less than 80 and it is not going up with longer time control.

If I am right then it support my theory that black mates in less than 80 moves

[D]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

## which would take more moves to win

**Moderators:** bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

**Forum rules**

This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

### Re: which would take more moves to win

I will patiently wait for your proof toobob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."EroSennin wrote:I will patiently wait for your proof toobob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

That is just old philosophical rambling. Yes we can't prove anything to be real.bob wrote:Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."EroSennin wrote:I will patiently wait for your proof toobob wrote: That could be done, but what does it prove? Computers still don't play anywhere near perfectly, even with queens removed.

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

EroSennin wrote:That is just old philosophical rambling. Yes we can't prove anything to be real.bob wrote:Where do I need a proof to say "I don't know?" Try to read a bit before making such comments. I have continually stated "we don't know whether a knight wins or not, either with perfect play or perfect vs a GM."EroSennin wrote:

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.

we can prove many things, just not what a knight-odds game with perfect play resolves to.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

You really want to list all the million things we can't prove? Also maybe it is all just a dream so obviously there is no proof of anything.bob wrote:EroSennin wrote:That is just old philosophical rambling. Yes we can't prove anything to be real.bob wrote:

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.

we can prove many things, just not what a knight-odds game with perfect play resolves to.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

Want to list the BILLIONS of things we can prove. I can prove fine #70 is a forced mate, for example. But if you can't prove something, you can't state that something as a fact either. Which is what has been done here multiple times. A knight handicap is better than no handicap, how much better is, and probably always will be unknown.EroSennin wrote:You really want to list all the million things we can't prove? Also maybe it is all just a dream so obviously there is no proof of anything.bob wrote:EroSennin wrote:

My proof is easy: There is NO data supporting ANYTHING about expected results with perfect play, other than in the simple endgames we can get perfect play in today (7 total pieces and fewer).

If you want proof of no perfect play today, take any SF vs Komodo game from TCEC. Go over them move by move at 1 hour per move. If you find ANY move where a longer search gives a better answer, you just proved we don't have perfect play today.

we can prove many things, just not what a knight-odds game with perfect play resolves to.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

Well obviously this thread is quite boring. Close it up.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

It gets automatically closed when people stop reading and responding...EroSennin wrote:Well obviously this thread is quite boring. Close it up.

### Re: which would take more moves to win

One of these "BILLIONS of things we can prove" is the following proof:bob wrote: Want to list the BILLIONS of things we can prove. I can prove fine #70 is a forced mate, for example. But if you can't prove something, you can't state that something as a fact either. Which is what has been done here multiple times. A knight handicap is better than no handicap, how much better is, and probably always will be unknown.

I have an EPD file of 5-men TB wins.

Using this file as openings with Komodo, I have the following:

400 Games in 40/1 minute

Komodo No TB self-games: average length of the won game --

**26.0**moves

Komodo 5-men Syzygy self-games: average length of the won game --

**23.6**moves

Therefore the perfect play SHORTENS the length of the game (the path to win) in theoretically won positions, contrary to what you are stating here all the way from the first post in this thread.