Discrepancies between Fundamental Chess Endings and Fritz/..

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

I have found some discrepancies between Fundamental Chess Endings and
Fritz with the endgame tablebases (and online tablebases), for endings
with no pawns, in "Table of Computer Database Results for Pawnless
Endings", at the end of FCE by Muller and Lamprecht.

For instance, F&M give this as a win for white in 10 moves: w: K8,
Qg8; b: Kb8, Qa8, white to move. I was wondering if this was 10 moves
to win the queen or 10 moves to checkmate. Neither, according to
Fritz with tablebases and online tablebase! White wins the queen on
move 8 but checkmates on move 13.

This came up because I was looking at Q vs. 2N, and K&M give a
position as the longest win for white, in 63 moves. I was wondering
if this was 63 moves to simplify, or 63 to mate (because I was
wondering if a captured occurred within 50 moves). According to Fritz
with the tablebase, a knight is won on move 57 and mate is achieved on
move 72.

A similar one is Q vs. 2B. K&M give a position that is the longest
win for white, in 71 moves. Fritz says that a bishop is won on move
72.

Another one is Q vs. R. F&M give white's longest win as 31 moves, but
the rook is won on move 22 and mate is on move 30.

So, which of these sources is right? I assume that Fritz with the
tablebase is more likely to be correct, but why are there so many
discrepancies between it an FCE on just the few positions I checked?


---
Replace you know what by j to email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 20:30:18 -0400, Jud McCranie
<youknowwhat.mccranie@adelphia.net> wrote:

>I have found some discrepancies between Fundamental Chess Endings and

I think I've answered my question by more careful reading of FCE. F&M
say that the number of moves they give are "conversion to a simpler
endgame (or mate)." The tablebase uses the shortest path to mate,
which generally doesn't involve the shortest path to conversion.

---
Replace you know what by j to email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Jud McCranie wrote:
> I have found some discrepancies between Fundamental Chess Endings and
> Fritz with the endgame tablebases (and online tablebases), for endings
> with no pawns, in "Table of Computer Database Results for Pawnless
> Endings", at the end of FCE by Muller and Lamprecht.
>
> For instance, F&M give this as a win for white in 10 moves: w: K8,
> Qg8; b: Kb8, Qa8, white to move. I was wondering if this was 10 moves
> to win the queen or 10 moves to checkmate. Neither, according to
> Fritz with tablebases and online tablebase! White wins the queen on
> move 8 but checkmates on move 13.
>
> This came up because I was looking at Q vs. 2N, and K&M give a
> position as the longest win for white, in 63 moves. I was wondering
> if this was 63 moves to simplify, or 63 to mate (because I was
> wondering if a captured occurred within 50 moves). According to Fritz
> with the tablebase, a knight is won on move 57 and mate is achieved on
> move 72.
>
> A similar one is Q vs. 2B. K&M give a position that is the longest
> win for white, in 71 moves. Fritz says that a bishop is won on move
> 72.
>
> Another one is Q vs. R. F&M give white's longest win as 31 moves, but
> the rook is won on move 22 and mate is on move 30.
>
> So, which of these sources is right? I assume that Fritz with the
> tablebase is more likely to be correct, but why are there so many
> discrepancies between it an FCE on just the few positions I checked?
>
>
> ---
> Replace you know what by j to email

Nalimov Tablebases are the most accurate

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:52:26 -0400, Bugsy <Bugsy@none.com> wrote:

>Nalimov Tablebases are the most accurate

That's what I figured, but later I realized that while FCE gives the
moves to simplification, which differed from the # of moves in line in
the tablebase to simplification, the reason is that the tablebase
gives the shortest path to checkmate, which doesn't necessarily
include the shortest path to simplification.
---
Replace you know what by j to email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Jud McCranie wrote:
> On Fri, 13 May 2005 22:52:26 -0400, Bugsy <Bugsy@none.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Nalimov Tablebases are the most accurate
>
>
> That's what I figured, but later I realized that while FCE gives the
> moves to simplification, which differed from the # of moves in line in
> the tablebase to simplification, the reason is that the tablebase
> gives the shortest path to checkmate, which doesn't necessarily
> include the shortest path to simplification.
> ---
> Replace you know what by j to email

Nalimov considers all moves, just longer to mate for some !

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

I agree that FCE is confusing, but once you get used to it, it does
contain a lot of good stuff. e.g. Bähr's Rule.

Still, I prefer Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (yes, I have both).

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

>Wow!

>But Dvoretsky doesn't have that information in it.

Precisely. That's *why* I mentioned it especially.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On 14 May 2005 03:27:07 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
<mark.houlsby@eudoramail.com> wrote:

>I agree that FCE is confusing, but once you get used to it, it does
>contain a lot of good stuff. e.g. Bähr's Rule.
>
>Still, I prefer Dvoretsky's Endgame Manual (yes, I have both).

Wow!

But Dvoretsky doesn't have that information in it.

---
Replace you know what by j to email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

>You prefer Dvoretsky doesn't have that information in it?? (I don't
get it.)

The point is this: Dvoretsky omits to mention Bähr's rule. FCE covers
it. Therefore, that is a *plus* for FCE.

*Notwithstanding this* DEM contains a very great deal of knowledge with
which I am not yet conversant.
In general, I find Dvoretsky's explanations and analyses easier to
follow than Müller and Lamprecht's, even when M & L quote the same
example. This is by no means to suggest that FCE is bad, just that for
my money DEM is easier to follow.

If and when I master *all* of the examples in DEM, I should already be
a *much better player* than I am now. Upon *reaching* the point at
which DEM can teach me *nothing more*, I shall then be content to
*continue my education* using FCE, and Nunn's "Secrets of *** Endgames"
and Korchnoi's "Practical Rook Endgames" and....

Clearer, now?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

>>Clearer, now?


>No, because I said that I wanted the information that is in FCE that
is not in DEM, but you said that DEM was better because it doesn't
contain the information I need.

I'm sorry...*where* did you say that you *wanted* the information? I
DID NOT suggest that DEM was better *because it omits Bähr's rule*. I
said that it was better *for me* because I find it easier to follow,
the analysis is clearer, all of that. I said that the fact that FCE
contains Bähr's rule is a plus point for FCE, but until I have DEM
down, that will not become relevant to me.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On 14 May 2005 08:54:19 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
<mark.houlsby@eudoramail.com> wrote:

>Precisely. That's *why* I mentioned it especially.

You prefer Dvoretsky doesn't have that information in it?? (I don't
get it.)

---
Replace you know what by j to email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On 14 May 2005 14:02:27 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
<mark.houlsby@eudoramail.com> wrote:

>Clearer, now?

No, because I said that I wanted the information that is in FCE that
is not in DEM, but you said that DEM was better because it doesn't
contain the information I need.

---
Replace you know what by j to email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

>>I'm sorry...*where* did you say that you *wanted* the information?


>Where did I say that I wanted your opinion of FCE vs. DEM? I was
asking about info that is in FCE and not in DEM.

>It is like I asked "Did the Dodgers win yesterday" and you answer that

you like the Yankees better. Your response was irreverent to the
topic.

OIC, now I get your drift.

Your indignation is noted, I'll remember *not* to try to help you in
future. How's that senility working out for ya?

BTW it's "irrelevant", not "irreverent" or did you forget already?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

On 14 May 2005 14:39:20 -0700, "Mark Houlsby"
<mark.houlsby@eudoramail.com> wrote:

>I'm sorry...*where* did you say that you *wanted* the information?

Where did I say that I wanted your opinion of FCE vs. DEM? I was
asking about info that is in FCE and not in DEM.

It is like I asked "Did the Dodgers win yesterday" and you answer that
you like the Yankees better. Your response was irreverent to the
topic.

---
Replace you know what by j to email

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.chess.computer (More info?)

Hi - I've just started reading Muller & Lamprecht's awesome endgame
text Fundamental Chess Endings. Does anybody know of how I might get a
pgn (unannotated is fine!) of the examples? I'd be happy to contribute
a section...there was a prior post about some joint project like this
but it didn't resolve with a clear answer.