syzygy wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:syzygy wrote:Evert wrote:Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:[d]8/4n3/4k3/8/8/4K1B1/2B5/8 w - - 0 1
why instruct the engine above position is a draw, when SF finds mate very quickly even at bullet?
I'm not sure what point you think you're making?
The position is apparently mate in 43 moves (starting with 1. Bb3+), so the 50 move rule is irrelevant even if the knight is not captured (which I haven't checked). Source: Nalimov tables from
http://www.k4it.de/?topic=egtb&lang=en.
Yes, one side to this discussion is rather unwilling to understand the stuff he's talking about.
https://syzygy-tables.info/?fen=8/4n3/4 ... _w_-_-_0_1
DTZ=59, so white can force a mate or winning capture in under 30 moves.
If this were impossible to win within the 50-move rule, SF would be expected not to find a mate in the first place. After all, SF knows about and accepts the 50-move rule.
I can not go check each and every tbs position whether is a longer or shorter than 50 mate. The general rule say BB vs N 66 moves longest mate, there are shorter mates of course. the point was to demonstrate that SF
is able to deliver mate on its own in such positions, so why deprive it of a well-deserved win?
Do you
really not get it?
The position you gave is a win for white under the 50-move rule and SF using 50-move aware TBs will certainly deliver mate within the 50-move rule. In no way will SF be deprived of its well-deserved win.
Could you explain what you do not understand about this?
do not have quick access as well as the time to check tbs now, I hope you will help out with this, but here is a position I presume is longer than 50 mate:
[d]2kb4/1b6/8/8/3Q4/8/8/4K3 w - - 0 1
actually, a variation of the TCEC game
I presume SF will be able to deliver mate on its own above at blitz TC, will it not?
Is somebody able to check this?
You obviously have internet access and you are able to paste FENs. So you don't need our help.
https://syzygy-tables.info/
syzygy tbs site is blocked for me
I have the following, very reasonable suggestion ( unfortunately, no one specified in which protocol the suggested change could be implemented, so I go for UCI and winboard):
Why not add a paragraph or 2 in UCI/winboard protocols, with following text:
' Engines implementing the UCI/winboard protocol follow the FIDE Rules of Chess, with the exception of the 50-moves rule.
For the purposes of engine competition, the FIDE 50-moves rule is transformed into 2 subrules:
1. the general 50-moves FIDE rule applies throughout the game, with the exception of pawnless endgames.
2. only in pawnless endgames, the 50-moves rule is extended to 550-moves rule (the longest known such mate being 1090 plies), to accomodate relevant winning positions.'
very consise, and very reasonable.
programmers and gui authors will comply in a day or 2, as otherwise their engines will not be able to play in competitions. and we have the problem solved very quickly.
of course, maybe the 550 bound could be lower, say 200, to include some 80% of relevant endings, or why not apply a variable length rule, specifying to which endgames a longer or shorther variable length rule applies? no waste of time, but still including all ednagmes?