i remember several years ago once reading about a computer analysis of an endgame with, possibly, two minor pieces versus one minor piece, a knight and bishop versus a bishop or knight, perhaps, that took approximately 35,000 moves in order for the computer to achieve a checkmate position. Is anyone here familiar with this study and can anyone here point me to any information at all about this?
Originally posted by eldragonflyYou misunderstood.
i remember several years ago once reading about a computer analysis of an endgame with, possibly, two minor pieces versus one minor piece, a knight and bishop versus a bishop or knight, perhaps, that took approximately 35,000 moves in order for the computer to achieve a checkmate position. Is anyone here familiar with this study and can anyone here point me to any information at all about this?
The longest tablebase mate (that's what they are called) is somewhere in the region of 265 moves.
Generating the tablebase may well have required 35,000 positions (more likely it was much much more) to be calculated and linked but that's the extent of it.
Originally posted by XanthosNZThat's possible but i doubt it. Although the article may have been poorly written, but i believe the essence of what i asked was correct. Can you point me to a website that deals with tablebase mates, computer simulations and endgame positions?
You misunderstood.
The longest tablebase mate (that's what they are called) is somewhere in the region of 265 moves.
Generating the tablebase may well have required 35,000 positions (more likely it was much much more) to be calculated and linked but that's the extent of it.
Originally posted by eldragonflyWhen someone who knows what they are talking about corrects you don't tell them they are wrong. It just makes you look silly.
That's possible but i doubt it. Although the article may have been poorly written, but i believe the essence of what i asked was correct. Can you point me to a website that deals with tablebase mates, computer simulations and endgame positions?
Google.
The current record for tablebase mates:
1.Kd6 N6g4 2.Kd5 Ne3+ 3.Kd4 Nc2+ 4.Kc3 Ne3 5.Kd2 Nfg4 6.Kd3 Kg2 7.Ke4 Nc4 8.Kf4 Nge5 9.Ra7 Nd3+ 10.Ke4 Nf2+ 11.Kd4 Nd6 12.Kd5 Nb5 13.Ra5 Nd1 14.Kc5 Nbc3 15.Kc4 Ne2 16.Kd3 Ng3 17.Ra1 Nf2+ 18.Ke3 Nf1+ 19.Kd4 Ng3 20.Ra3 Nf5+ 21.Kd5 Nd1 22.Nc6 Nde3+ 23.Ke6 Ng7+ 24.Kf7 Ngf5 25.Kf6 Kf2 26.Ra2+ Kf3 27.Ke5 Kg4 28.Ke4 Nc4 29.Ra4 Kg5 30.Nd8 Ng3+ 31.Kd4 Nb6 32.Ra7 Nf5+ 33.Ke4 Nc4 34.Ne6+ Kf6 35.Ra6 Ng3+ 36.Kd4 Nd6 37.Kd5 Nde4 38.Ra3 Nf5 39.Nf8 Nf2 40.Rf3 Ng4 41.Ke4 Nh6 42.Rf2 Ke7 43.Ng6+ Ke6 44.Nf4+ Kf6 45.Nd3 Ke6 46.Nc5+ Kd6 47.Nb7+ Kc7 48.Na5 Nd6+ 49.Kd5 Ng4 50.Rd2 Ne3+ 51.Kd4 Ng4 52.Rg2 Kb6 53.Nb3 Nb5+ 54.Ke4 Nd6+ 55.Kf4 Nh6 56.Rc2 Nb5 57.Rc1 Nf7 58.Nd2 Nc7 59.Nc4+ Kb5 60.Ke4 Ng5+ 61.Kf5 Nge6 62.Nd6+ Kb6 63.Nc8+ Kb5 64.Ke5 Nc5 65.Rg1 Nb3 66.Rg7 Na6 67.Rb7+ Kc4 68.Nd6+ Kc3 69.Rg7 Na5 70.Rg4 Nc6+ 71.Ke4 Na5 72.Ke3 Nb4 73.Nb5+ Kb3 74.Nd4+ Ka4 75.Rh4 Nc4+ 76.Ke4 Nd6+ 77.Ke5 Nc4+ 78.Ke6 Na3 79.Rh8 Nbc2 80.Nf5 Kb5 81.Kd5 Nb4+ 82.Ke4 Nc4 83.Nd4+ Kb6 84.Rh6+ Kc5 85.Rh5+ Kd6 86.Nf5+ Kd7 87.Rh7+ Kc6 88.Kd4 Kb5 89.Rh5 Na5 90.Nd6+ Kb6 91.Rg5 Kc7 92.Nf5 Kd7 93.Rg2 Ke6 94.Ng7+ Kd7 95.Rh2 Nb7 96.Rd2 Ke7 97.Rb2 Nd8 98.Kc4 Nbc6 99.Kd5 Kd7 100.Rd2 Ke7 101.Nh5 Nb4+ 102.Kc5 Na6+ 103.Kb6 Nb8 104.Nf4 Nf7 105.Kc7 Na6+ 106.Kc6 Nb8+ 107.Kd5 Nd7 108.Re2+ Kf6 109.Rf2 Nb6+ 110.Kc6 Nc4 111.Nd5+ Kg5 112.Ne7 Nh6 113.Kd5 Ne5 114.Rf1 Nd7 115.Rg1+ Kf4 116.Ng6+ Kf5 117.Kd6 Nf6 118.Nh4+ Ke4 119.Re1+ Kd3 120.Ke5 Nd7+ 121.Ke6 Nc5+ 122.Kd5 Nd7 123.Rd1+ Ke3 124.Rf1 Nb6+ 125.Ke6 Nc4 126.Ng2+ Ke2 127.Rf4 Nb2 128.Rb4 Nd1 129.Ke5 Nf7+ 130.Kf6 Nd8 131.Nf4+ Kf3 132.Nd5 Nc6 133.Rc4 Na5 134.Ra4 Nc6 135.Ke6 Nb2 136.Rh4 Nd3 137.Kf5 Ke2 138.Rc4 Nde5 139.Rc3 Kd2 140.Rh3 Nc4 141.Kf4 Nd4 142.Ke4 Ne2 143.Rh2 Kd1 144.Rf2 Ke1 145.Rg2 Kd1 146.Kd3 Nb2+ 147.Ke3 Nc4+ 148.Kf2 Ne5 149.Rg5 Nc4 150.Rg4 Na3 151.Kf3 Nc2 152.Ke4 Kd2 153.Rg2 Nd4 154.Nf4 Kd1 155.Nh5 Nc2 156.Rf2 Na3 157.Kd3 Nc1+ 158.Ke3 Nc2+ 159.Ke4 Ne2 160.Rf3 Nb4 161.Rh3 Nc1 162.Rh2 Ne2 163.Ng7 Nc3+ 164.Ke5 Nb1 165.Ne6 Nd2 166.Rh3 Nc6+ 167.Kd6 Nb4 168.Kc5 Na2 169.Kd4 Nc1 170.Rh7 Ke2 171.Rh2+ Kf3 172.Rh5 Ke2 173.Re5+ Kd1 174.Rf5 Ne2+ 175.Kd3 Nc1+ 176.Ke3 Nc4+ 177.Kd4 Nb2 178.Rg5 Nbd3 179.Rg7 Ke2 180.Ng5 Ne1 181.Rf7 Kd1 182.Ne4 Ne2+ 183.Kc4 Ng2 184.Rd7+ Ke1 185.Ra7 Kd1 186.Ra1+ Kc2 187.Ra2+ Kd1 188.Rd2+ Ke1 189.Rb2 Kd1 190.Ng5 Ne1 191.Rb1+ Nc1 192.Kc3 Nd3 193.Ne4 Ke2 194.Kd4 Kd1 195.Rb8 Ne1 196.Rd8 Ke2 197.Nc5 Kf3 198.Rf8+ Ke2 199.Rf7 Na2 200.Re7+ Kd1 201.Nb3 Nb4 202.Re4 Ng2 203.Na5 Nc2+ 204.Kd3 Nge3 205.Nb3 Nf1 206.Re8 Ne1+ 207.Kc3 Nf3 208.Nc5 Ng3 209.Kd3 Ne1+ 210.Ke3 Nc2+ 211.Kf2 Nf5 212.Rd8+ Kc1 213.Ke2 Ng3+ 214.Kf3 Nf5 215.Rd7 Nfd4+ 216.Ke4 Kb2 217.Kd3 Nc6 218.Rd6 Ne5+ 219.Ke4 Nc4 220.Rd3 Na5 221.Na4+ Ka2 222.Rc3 Na1 223.Rh3 N1b3 224.Kd3 Ka3 225.Rh4 Nc6 226.Kc3 Ncd4 227.Nb6 Ne2+ 228.Kc2 Ned4+ 229.Kd3 Kb4 230.Nc8 Kb5 231.Kc3 Kc6 232.Rh5 Kc7 233.Ne7 Kd6 234.Nd5 Kc5 235.Nb4+ Kd6 236.Rd5+ Kc7 237.Kc4 Kc8 238.Nd3 Kb7 239.Rd7+ Kc6 240.Ne5+ Kb6 241.Rf7 Ne6 242.Kxb3 Kc5 243.Rd7 Nd4+ 244.Kc3 Ne2+ 245.Kd3 Nf4+ 246.Ke4 Ne6 247.Rd5+ Kb4 248.Rd6 Nc5+ 249.Kd5 Na4 250.Kd4 Ka5 251.Rd7 Ka6 252.Nc4 Kb5 253.Ra7 Kc6 254.Rxa4 Kd7 255.Ra6 Ke8 256.Ra7 Kd8 257.Rb7 Kc8 258.Rg7 Kd8 259.Nb6 Ke8 260.Ke5 Kf8 261.Kf6 Ke8 262.Rg8 mate
http://www.xs4all.nl/~timkr/chess2/diary_3.htm
Listen to XanthosNZ and you won't ruin your good reputation; argue and you slit your own throat.
Originally posted by XanthosNZi don't think you know what you are talking about. Although it's possible to force checkmate with 2 minor pieces versus one minor piece in 256 moves or less, you have yet to show this to be the case. There may have been other constraints, such as avoiding a stalemate position.
When someone who knows what they are talking about corrects you don't tell them they are wrong. It just makes you look silly.
Google.
You are wrong... until you prove otherwise. 😉
Originally posted by eldragonflyThe ignorance in your statement regarding how computers operate reveals more than you may be aware. Of course, supercomputers may play longer games because their chess software is deficient. Tablebases are comprehensive computer analyses of chess positions that currently exist for all possible variations of five or fewer pieces. Six piece tablebases are in progress, but will take several more years to complete. Supercomputers are involved in the process of tablebase generation.
Tablebases are used for chess engines, this was a simulation performed on supercomputers. Again, wrong.
Originally posted by eldragonflyMy (now demonstrated to be almost exactly correct) memory trumps your hazy recollection everytime.
i don't think you know what you are talking about. Although it's possible to force checkmate with 2 minor pieces versus one minor piece in 256 moves or less, you have yet to show this to be the case. There may have been other constraints, such as avoiding a stalemate position.
You are wrong... until you prove otherwise. 😉
There are almost certainly no pawnless ending with 6 pieces (both sides including kings) or less that requires more than the 262 moves that is posted in this thread (and if there are it is maybe 20 or so moves more not 30 thousand).
Of course a forced mate must avoid stalemate positions. That's part of the reason the one Wulebgr posted takes so long.
Take his advice and quit while you only look like a minor idiot.
Originally posted by eldragonflyOh would you look at that. Almost exactly what I said in the very first reply. Yeah I must be a complete moron.
Are you a moron Xanthos? You know where to stick your advice, at least i hope you do. 😉
It appears however that you were correct, it must have been positions examined/nodes and not actual moves. Although a difficult mate a KBNKN mate is only 107 moves tops.
Next time try listening to the answers people give to your questions instead of insisting they are wrong without any evidence. Especially me because I know everything.
You seem to have mental problems Xanthos.
It was a question and a legitimate one. Why all the fuss? Why you go overboard to let everyone know you are mentally disturbed is beyond me.
FTR the computer simulation in question was never identified nor located via google, however it was determined that the longest endgame with minor pieces was approximately 262 moves.
Originally posted by eldragonfly😴
You seem to have mental problems Xanthos.
It was a question and a legitimate one. Why all the fuss? Why you go overboard to let everyone know you are mentally disturbed is beyond me.
FTR the computer simulation in question was never identified nor located via google, however it was determined that the longest endgame with minor pieces was approximately 262 moves.