Queens vs Knights

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

hopelessly lost position.

only if Queeny is the measure of all things.

we still do not know how the 2Qs vs 5Ns position ends up, before we pass to the much more complicated one.

with all due respect to Mr. Schnarnagl, I have difficulties pronouncing his name.

[hgm]

Not to mention spelling his name...

2Q vs 5N is much closer to equality. The point is that with 7 Knights you can prevent the Queens could ever convert to that. Just keep all Knights protected twice at all times, and the first Queen will have to go for a single Knight.

So you could change the rules such that having Knights minus Queens < 4 is an instant loss for the Knights ('win by robbery'). It would not matter.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Not to mention spelling his name...

2Q vs 5N is much closer to equality. The point is that with 7 Knights you can prevent the Queens could ever convert to that. Just keep all Knights protected twice at all times, and the first Queen will have to go for a single Knight.

So you could change the rules such that having Knights minus Queens < 4 is an instant loss for the Knights ('win by robbery'). It would not matter.

I do not see why one queen could not be sacked for 2 knights at any moment, that is certainly possible both with the 3Qs vs 7Ns, and 2Qs vs 5Ns. In the first case, you sac 2 queens in a row, and always get to the same Q vs 3 minors position, with no other pieces present that favours only the queen side.

queen vs 3 minor, with more pieces for both sides present, already starts favouring the minors side, the more the additional pieces, the better.

I did a quick shootout with SF and Komodo, 10 games each, at 1 min., with the closest position acceptable as legal by Fritz gui:

[d]1nbnkbn1/1ppppppp/8/8/8/8/1PPPPPPP/2QQK3 w - - 0 1

as expected, queen side won +9 -3 = 8

so, seemingly, this is more like a queen side win than the other way around.

I do not expect that minors side will score better with 3 Qs vs 7 minors, for the very same reason, 2 queens could be easily exchanged both for 2 enemy minors.

I also in no way believe 5 Ns would in any way score better than 5 Bs or a mix of Ns and Bs, it is more like the other way around, as bishops are stronger than knights.

so, for the time being, I guess queen side has the advantage; minors do get bonus vs queens, but not in such a large proportion.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

[d]bnbnkbnn/2ppppp1/8/8/8/8/2PPPPP1/2QQKQ2 w - - 0 1

and with this one, the closest available position that would be accepted by Fritz as legal,

can not test with SF, as winning threshold is set below SF eval, and SF wins all by default.

Komodo scores +2 -2 =6

so, pretty much even.

and that is with very small pawn span.

larger pawn span will of course only favour the queen side, as queens move very fast.

so, I do not see how minors side could be better, for me, only queen side could be winning, no matter the larger number of minors.

[Guenther]

Not to mention spelling his name...

2Q vs 5N is much closer to equality. The point is that with 7 Knights you can prevent the Queens could ever convert to that. Just keep all Knights protected twice at all times, and the first Queen will have to go for a single Knight.

So you could change the rules such that having Knights minus Queens < 4 is an instant loss for the Knights ('win by robbery'). It would not matter.

I do not see why one queen could not be sacked for 2 knights at any moment, that is certainly possible both with the 3Qs vs 7Ns, and 2Qs vs 5Ns. In the first case, you sac 2 queens in a row, and always get to the same Q vs 3 minors position, with no other pieces present that favours only the queen side.

queen vs 3 minor, with more pieces for both sides present, already starts favouring the minors side, the more the additional pieces, the better.

I did a quick shootout with SF and Komodo, 10 games each, at 1 min., with the closest position acceptable as legal by Fritz gui:

[d]1nbnkbn1/1ppppppp/8/8/8/8/1PPPPPPP/2QQK3 w - - 0 1

as expected, queen side won +9 -3 = 8

so, seemingly, this is more like a queen side win than the other way around.

I do not expect that minors side will score better with 3 Qs vs 7 minors, for the very same reason, 2 queens could be easily exchanged both for 2 enemy minors.

I also in no way believe 5 Ns would in any way score better than 5 Bs or a mix of Ns and Bs, it is more like the other way around, as bishops are stronger than knights.

so, for the time being, I guess queen side has the advantage; minors do get bonus vs queens, but not in such a large proportion.

1. wrong setup (suddenly mixing B and N)

2. use a reasonable GUI

3. your memory is bad

www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49857

4. use a better program for that imbalance as told: queeny

5. you are always wrong anyway

6. again you have hi-jacked a thread for trolling (how long?)
I am really sorry for Fermin.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Not to mention spelling his name...

2Q vs 5N is much closer to equality. The point is that with 7 Knights you can prevent the Queens could ever convert to that. Just keep all Knights protected twice at all times, and the first Queen will have to go for a single Knight.

So you could change the rules such that having Knights minus Queens < 4 is an instant loss for the Knights ('win by robbery'). It would not matter.

I do not see why one queen could not be sacked for 2 knights at any moment, that is certainly possible both with the 3Qs vs 7Ns, and 2Qs vs 5Ns. In the first case, you sac 2 queens in a row, and always get to the same Q vs 3 minors position, with no other pieces present that favours only the queen side.

queen vs 3 minor, with more pieces for both sides present, already starts favouring the minors side, the more the additional pieces, the better.

I did a quick shootout with SF and Komodo, 10 games each, at 1 min., with the closest position acceptable as legal by Fritz gui:

[d]1nbnkbn1/1ppppppp/8/8/8/8/1PPPPPPP/2QQK3 w - - 0 1

as expected, queen side won +9 -3 = 8

so, seemingly, this is more like a queen side win than the other way around.

I do not expect that minors side will score better with 3 Qs vs 7 minors, for the very same reason, 2 queens could be easily exchanged both for 2 enemy minors.

I also in no way believe 5 Ns would in any way score better than 5 Bs or a mix of Ns and Bs, it is more like the other way around, as bishops are stronger than knights.

so, for the time being, I guess queen side has the advantage; minors do get bonus vs queens, but not in such a large proportion.

1. wrong setup (suddenly mixing B and N)

2. use a reasonable GUI

3. your memory is bad

www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49857

4. use a better program for that imbalance as told: queeny

5. you are always wrong anyway

6. again you have hi-jacked a thread for trolling (how long?)
I am really sorry for Fermin.

I have hijacked nothing, it was not me who posted this imbalance position.

so, you really suggest Queeny is stronger than SF and Komodo?

[Guenther]

so, you really suggest Queeny is stronger than SF and Komodo?

Yes for certain imbalances, but you know this already since 4 years,
see the link I gave before.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

so, you really suggest Queeny is stronger than SF and Komodo?

Yes for certain imbalances, but you know this already since 4 years,
see the link I gave before.

that is simply not true.

no one ever demonstrated Queeny is better than either SF or Komodo in such imbalances.

it is very much the other way around, of course, as SF finds tactical queen moves Queeny does not.

with its poor search, Queeny can do almost nothing the right way, therefore, by playing games with it you might get the wrong conclusions.

only thing that has been demonstrated is that Queeny evaluates the position more relevantly, but that has nothing to do with playing it also better.

[hgm]

Yes, QueeNy is about 1000 Elo weaker than Stockfish and Komodo (when run with normal piece values).

The point, however, is that it beats Komodo and Stockfish when playing with the Knights in this position. This is the hallmark of won positions; once you know how to win them, it doesn't matter how strong the opponent is. Won positions are won even against perfect play. TSCP beats Stockfish 100% of the time, in KQK. Even if Stockfish uses EGT.

In this case the knowledge is that you should not allow Q for 2N trading. Normal engines, including Komodo and Stockfish, might not know this, and frequently bungle the won game, even losing it. QueeNy has Q=9.5 and N=5, which makes it value 2 Knights above a Queen, and thus avoid conversion to 2Q vs 5N. Given enough depth to recognize the tactical threats for forcing such trades, it will be able to avoid them. Seven Knights is enough to keep all Knights protected twice virtually all the time. N=5 might even be too low, as it now would allow Q for 2N+P trades. This would only hurt when the opponent actively seeks such trades, though, which is probably not the case for Komodo.

Bishops cannot cooperate this well: they cannot protect each other when on different color, and they strongly hamper each other's mobility when the do protect each other. Knights and Bishops also do not mix well, because the protection they can offer is not mutual. So any Knight->Bishop substitution strongly weakens the side with the minors, and results of such games prove nothing about the pure Q vs N case.

So QueeNy is not "the measure of all things", but it does beat the top engines with the Knights in this position, with a much higher score than other top engines would achieve against the same opponent. This was tested with thousands of games. And that is the definition of "being better". Despite their strong search, most top engines just lack the evaluation knowledge to play this successfully. Better search is of no use if a poor evaluation doesn't let you search for the right thing.

All you do is offer (completely uninformed) talk, and, as they say, talk "cuts no wood". It is game results that define reality, and any reasoning that denies reality is know as 'delusion'...

[Guenther]

so, you really suggest Queeny is stronger than SF and Komodo?

Yes for certain imbalances, but you know this already since 4 years,
see the link I gave before.

that is simply not true.

no one ever demonstrated Queeny is better than either SF or Komodo in such imbalances.

it is very much the other way around, of course, as SF finds tactical queen moves Queeny does not.

with its poor search, Queeny can do almost nothing the right way, therefore, by playing games with it you might get the wrong conclusions.

only thing that has been demonstrated is that Queeny evaluates the position more relevantly, but that has nothing to do with playing it also better.

Either you have a problem with your memory or you are not the same Tsvetkov as 4 years before.
Of course other reasons could be: plain trolling / insane?
All this was demonstrated in lengthy exercises especially for a certain L. Tsvetkov in 2013.

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49857

http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=49808