Queens vs Knights

[hgm]

Is KRRBKRR also a general win when taking into account the 50-move rule?

As for the 4N vs Q, this already should be subject to the Elephantiasis/Scharnagle effect. According to the quadratic formula you would get 11 - 4*3 - 2/3*4*1 = 11 - 12 - 2.66 = 3.66, pretty close to 4. In the KRRBKRR case there should also be some Scharnagle effect, as the black Rooks are interdicted by the extra Bishops, and thus effectively worth less than the white Rooks.

So it could be that your observation that presence of extra equal pieces pieces makes it easier to win is in fact a manifestation of the Scharnagl effect, adding some extra quarter Pawns to the 325cP advantage of a Bishop, bringing the total lead close to 4.

[Evert]

... Only that the difference is less than the ~4 Pawns needed to win a Pawnless end-game.

I don't think that rule is accurate when there are more than 5 pieces (including kings) on the board. For example, it seems KQKNNNN is generally won by the knights, and KRRBKRR is often won by the side with the bishop.

From what I remember, 4 Pawns is rounded up and it's something like "minor+". KQKNNNN has a minor and elephantiasis (about 120cp according to estimates in this thread) for a material advantage over 4 pawns.
I don't know the elephantiasis term for rooks and bishops, but if it's something in the order of 40cp that might be enough. On the other hand, white must avoid trading rooks. That means white evaluates his rooks as more valuable than black's, and must adopt a trade-avoiding strategy. If the bonus of the former outweighs the penalty of the latter, that may help to put the score over the edge also in this case.

Either way though, I would treat the 4 pawn advantage rule as a rule of thumb, not a hard limit.

[petero2]

Is KRRBKRR also a general win when taking into account the 50-move rule?

I don't know if it should be called a general win even without the 50-move rule. There are at least some positions where the weaker side can force a perpetual rook trade threat, leading to a draw. For example:
[d]8/8/4k3/3r1r2/8/8/6R1/R2BK3 b - - 0 1
Black draws by playing Ra5 and follows up with Ra5/b5/c5 to threaten the white rook.

I played around in the lomonosov android app and I found some positions needing more than 50 moves to mate, but since lomonosov is DTM that does not prove those positions would be a draw under the 50-move rule.

So the answer is currently unknown. We need syzygy 7-man TBs.

[hgm]

Well, 'general win' doesn't exclude an occasional draw. That even happens in KQKR:

[d]2q5/8/8/8/8/1k6/R7/1K6 w

What I was worrying about was a situation like KBBKN, which is generally won without 50-move rule, but requires on average some 80 moves to conversion, the large majority of all wins being cursed. I vaguely recall some of these 7-men wins were excessively long. (Although that was KRRNKRR, I believe.)

[petero2]

... Only that the difference is less than the ~4 Pawns needed to win a Pawnless end-game.

I don't think that rule is accurate when there are more than 5 pieces (including kings) on the board. For example, it seems KQKNNNN is generally won by the knights, and KRRBKRR is often won by the side with the bishop.

From what I remember, 4 Pawns is rounded up and it's something like "minor+". KQKNNNN has a minor and elephantiasis (about 120cp according to estimates in this thread) for a material advantage over 4 pawns.
I don't know the elephantiasis term for rooks and bishops, but if it's something in the order of 40cp that might be enough. On the other hand, white must avoid trading rooks. That means white evaluates his rooks as more valuable than black's, and must adopt a trade-avoiding strategy. If the bonus of the former outweighs the penalty of the latter, that may help to put the score over the edge also in this case.

Either way though, I would treat the 4 pawn advantage rule as a rule of thumb, not a hard limit.

The rule I learned a long time ago was that if you count material according to the 1/3/3/5/9 scheme, you need >3 advantage to win a pawnless endgame. I guessed the above referred to the same rule formulated differently.

I had that rule implemented in texel for a long time, but I later refined it since it did not seem accurate for more than 5 pieces, and I had observed some texel losses where texel traded down to such endgames playing the weaker side, thinking it would be an easy draw.

[Evert]

I played around in the lomonosov android app and I found some positions needing more than 50 moves to mate, but since lomonosov is DTM that does not prove those positions would be a draw under the 50-move rule.

So the answer is currently unknown. We need syzygy 7-man TBs.

Yes.
But if you can query the lomonosov tables from an engine (they're not free to access, from what I remember) it can verify at least some of these lines.

Positions with DTM<50 are fine.
For other positions the "best" winning line needs to be stepped through until mate or conversion (in this case you can use syzygy to get the result for the 6 man). If it hits the 50-move rule, backup and try an alternative.

Actually, thinking about it: that's a lot of data to pull over the internet. It may be faster to run a 7-man generator for it (writing that first is another matter).

[Adam Hair]

as said, and tested in practice, in pure case scenario, 7Ns equal 3Qs.

I have played many games like that, and all games end in a draw.

[pgn][Event "Shootout (Stockfish864POPCNT, Blitz 1m)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2nnknn1/3nnn2/8/8/8/8/8/2QQKQ2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "165"]

1. Qf2 {7.37/15 6} Ngf6 {6.62/17 4} 2. Qg1 {6.16/15 2 (Qa4)} Ncd6 {5.93/18 5
(Nfe6)} 3. Kf1 {5.65/17 1} Nfe6 {5.03/17 2} 4. Qb3 {4.75/16 2 (Qa3)} Nde4 {4.
34/16 2} 5. Qh3 {4.27/15 1} Ned5 {4.25/19 2} 6. Qc2 {4.23/16 1 (Qb2)} Nef4 {4.
04/19 1} 7. Qa3 {4.00/18 1} Nec3 {3.95/20 2} 8. Qcf2 {4.07/18 0} Nde5 {3.90/21
1} 9. Qg7 {3.85/19 1} Nfe6 {3.82/22 2} 10. Qfxf6 {3.89/19 1 (Qgxf6)} Nxf6 {3.
83/21 1} 11. Qxf6 {3.77/19 1} Nd5 {3.70/19 1} 12. Qf5 {3.79/20 2} Nef4 {3.58/
22 2} 13. Kg1 {3.58/20 1 (Qa7)} Nde6 {3.28/20 2} 14. Qc2 {3.43/19 1 (Qe4)} Nfg5
{3.08/21 1} 15. Qa7 {3.08/22 1} Ndc7 {3.08/24 1} 16. Qf5 {3.08/24 1 (Qaa4+)}
Ned3 {3.08/26 2} 17. Qb8+ {3.08/23 0 (Qf6)} Kd7 {3.08/27 3} 18. Qb6 {2.93/25 4}
Ncd5 {2.86/26 4} 19. Qa7+ {2.79/20 0} Kd6 {2.79/25 2} 20. Qa3+ {2.79/24 2
(Qa6+)} N5b4 {2.38/26 3} 21. Kh1 {1.52/21 3} Nf3 {1.70/21 1} 22. Qa7 {1.35/19 0
} Nbd5 {1.10/19 1} 23. Qff7 {0.88/17 1 (Qfh7)} Ke5 {0.37/20 2} 24. Qh7 {0.28/
18 1} Nec5 {0.25/20 1} 25. Qa1+ {0.24/17 0} Kd6 {0.19/20 1} 26. Qh6+ {0.25/20
0 (Qf1)} Nce6 {0.18/20 1} 27. Qf1 {0.17/20 0} Nd2 {0.18/21 1} 28. Qg1 {0.17/20
1} Ne4 {0.17/21 1} 29. Qa7 {0.17/19 1} Ndf2+ {0.16/20 1} 30. Kg1 {0.16/23 2}
Ne2+ {0.16/22 1} 31. Kf1 {0.16/23 5} Ndf4 {0.13/17 0 (N2g3+)} 32. Qb8+ {0.13/
18 0 (Qb6+)} Kd5 {0.13/21 1} 33. Qb3+ {0.13/21 1} Kc5 {0.13/22 1} 34. Qa3+ {0.
13/19 0} Kd5 {0.13/21 0} 35. Qh8 {0.13/21 2 (Qh2)} N2g3+ {0.13/20 0} 36. Qxg3 {
0.13/23 1} Nxg3+ {0.13/23 1} 37. Kxf2 {0.13/25 2} Ne4+ {0.13/25 0} 38. Kf3 {0.
13/26 1} N4c5 {0.13/25 0} 39. Qa1 {0.13/24 0 (Qa8+)} Nfd3 {0.13/24 0} 40. Qa8+
{0.13/22 2 (Ke3)} Kc4 {0.13/22 0 (Ke5)} 41. Qa2+ {0.13/22 0} Kd4 {0.13/23 0}
42. Qd2 {0.13/23 0} Nef4 {0.12/20 0} 43. Qh2 {0.12/19 0} Nd5 {0.12/19 0} 44.
Qg1+ {0.12/19 0 (Qh8+)} Kc4 {0.12/17 0} 45. Qg4+ {0.12/17 0} Kc3 {0.12/13 0}
46. Kg3 {0.12/16 0 (Qg7+)} Ne5 {0.12/13 0 (Nf6)} 47. Qe2 {0.09/16 0} Ncd3 {0.
09/16 0} 48. Qe4 {0.10/18 0 (Qa2)} Nf6 {0.11/16 0} 49. Qb7 {0.12/19 0 (Qe3)}
Nfd7 {0.12/18 0} 50. Qa7 {0.12/20 0} N7c5 {0.12/19 0 (Kd2)} 51. Kh4 {0.12/20 0}
Kd4 {0.12/18 0 (Kd2)} 52. Kg5 {0.12/19 0} Ke3 {0.12/15 0 (Ke4)} 53. Kf6 {0.12/
17 0} Kf4 {0.12/17 0} 54. Qa8 {0.12/18 0} Ke3 {0.12/14 0} 55. Qh1 {0.12/17 0
(Qa3)} Nf3 {0.12/16 0} 56. Ke7 {0.12/19 0} Nde5 {0.12/18 0} 57. Qc1+ {0.11/18 0
} Kd4 {0.11/18 0} 58. Qa1+ {0.12/20 0} Ke3 {0.12/21 0} 59. Kd6 {0.12/21 0} Ncd3
{0.12/19 0} 60. Qa7+ {0.12/21 0} Ke4 {0.12/21 0} 61. Qe7 {0.12/22 0} Ke3 {0.12/
20 0} 62. Kd5 {0.12/22 0} Nf4+ {0.12/21 0} 63. Kc5 {0.12/23 0} Nfd3+ {0.12/22 0
} 64. Kd6 {0.12/23 0} Ke4 {0.12/22 0} 65. Qb7+ {0.12/20 0 (Qe8)} Ke3 {0.12/19
0 (Kd4)} 66. Qd5 {0.12/20 0} Kf4 {0.12/20 0} 67. Qa2 {0.12/20 0} Ke4 {0.12/20 0
} 68. Qa8+ {0.11/19 0} Kf4 {0.11/20 0} 69. Qa4+ {0.11/20 0 (Ke6)} Ke3 {0.11/19
0} 70. Kc7 {0.11/20 0} Nf4 {0.11/20 0} 71. Qa7+ {0.11/17 0 (Qa2)} Ke4 {0.11/18
0} 72. Qb7+ {0.11/18 0} Ke3 {0.11/18 0} 73. Qb6+ {0.11/18 0} Ke4 {0.11/15 0}
74. Qb1+ {0.11/17 0 (Qa6)} Kd4 {0.11/18 0} 75. Qa1+ {0.11/18 0} Ke3 {0.11/16 0
(Ke4)} 76. Qa4 {0.11/17 0 (Qc3+)} Nd5+ {0.11/16 0} 77. Kd6 {0.10/15 0} Nf4 {0.
11/15 0} 78. Qa8 {0.11/14 0} Ned3 {0.09/14 0} 79. Ke7 {0.08/13 0} Ng6+ {0.08/
11 0} 80. Kf7 {0.08/13 0 (Kd7)} Ngf4 {0.07/13 0} 81. Qa3 {0.00/12 0 (Kf6)} Ke4
{0.00/14 0} 82. Qa8+ {0.00/17 0} Ke3 {0.00/23 0} 83. Kg7 {0.00/20 0 (Qa3)}
1/2-1/2

[Event "Shootout (Stockfish864POPCNT, Blitz 1m)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2nnknn1/3nnn2/8/8/8/8/8/2QQKQ2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "165"]

1. Qf2 {7.37/15 6} Ngf6 {6.62/17 4} 2. Qg1 {6.16/15 2 (Qa4)} Ncd6 {5.93/18 5
(Nfe6)} 3. Kf1 {5.65/17 1} Nfe6 {5.03/17 2} 4. Qb3 {4.75/16 2 (Qa3)} Nde4 {4.
34/16 2} 5. Qh3 {4.27/15 1} Ned5 {4.25/19 2} 6. Qc2 {4.23/16 0 (Qb2)} Nef4 {4.
04/19 1} 7. Qa3 {4.00/18 1} Nec3 {3.95/20 2} 8. Qcf2 {4.07/18 0} Nde5 {3.90/21
1} 9. Qg7 {3.85/19 1} Nfe6 {3.82/22 2} 10. Qfxf6 {3.89/19 0 (Qgxf6)} Nxf6 {3.
83/21 1} 11. Qxf6 {3.77/19 1} Nd5 {3.70/19 1} 12. Qf5 {3.79/20 2} Nef4 {3.58/
22 2} 13. Kg1 {3.58/20 1 (Qa7)} Nde6 {3.28/20 2} 14. Qc2 {3.43/19 1 (Qe4)} Nfg5
{3.08/21 1} 15. Qa7 {3.08/22 1} Ndc7 {3.08/24 1} 16. Qf5 {3.08/24 1 (Qaa4+)}
Ned3 {3.08/26 2} 17. Qb8+ {3.08/23 0 (Qf6)} Kd7 {3.08/27 3} 18. Qb6 {2.93/25 4}
Ncd5 {2.86/26 4} 19. Qa7+ {2.87/22 1} Kd6 {2.85/26 1} 20. Kh2 {2.79/25 1} Ndc5
{2.79/26 1} 21. Qb8+ {2.79/24 0 (Qa3)} Ke7 {2.79/28 1} 22. Kh1 {2.79/28 1} Nd7
{2.79/28 1} 23. Qa7 {2.71/22 1 (Qb3)} N5f6 {2.58/21 1} 24. Qa3+ {2.73/18 1} Kf7
{2.41/20 2 (Ke8)} 25. Qb3 {2.20/19 1} Ke8 {2.37/20 2} 26. Qb7 {2.20/19 1 (Qa4)}
Nfe4 {1.87/19 2} 27. Qa5 {1.69/17 1 (Qfb5)} N6c5 {1.72/16 0} 28. Qaa8+ {1.60/
18 1 (Qc8+)} Kf7 {1.08/18 1} 29. Qc7 {0.78/18 1} Nge6 {0.93/17 0} 30. Qca7 {0.
52/17 1} Nef6 {0.36/16 0} 31. Kg1 {0.16/19 1 (Qh8)} Kg6 {0.12/18 1} 32. Kf1 {
0.12/19 0} Ne5 {0.15/20 1} 33. Ke1 {0.18/20 0} Ned3+ {0.18/20 1} 34. Kd1 {0.14/
19 1} N4d5 {0.12/19 0} 35. Q7b8 {0.12/19 0 (Q8b8)} Nce4 {0.16/18 0} 36. Kc2 {
0.11/20 1 (Qa1)} N6c5 {0.11/20 0} 37. Qa3 {0.11/22 0} N3b4+ {0.11/21 0} 38.
Qbxb4 {0.11/24 1} Nxb4+ {0.11/25 1} 39. Qxb4 {0.11/27 0} Kf5 {0.11/27 0 (Ne6)}
40. Qb8 {0.11/27 0} Ne6 {0.11/27 0} 41. Kb3 {0.11/25 0 (Kd3)} N6c5+ {0.11/23 0
(Nd5)} 42. Kc4 {0.11/27 0} Ne6 {0.11/27 0} 43. Qb1 {0.11/26 0 (Qh2)} Kg6 {0.11/
26 0} 44. Qg1+ {0.11/27 0} Kf5 {0.11/28 0} 45. Kb3 {0.11/26 0 (Qf1+)} N6c5+ {
0.11/26 0} 46. Kb4 {0.11/28 0} Nd5+ {0.11/25 0 (Nd3+)} 47. Kc4 {0.11/28 2} Ndf6
{0.11/28 0} 48. Kb5 {0.11/27 0 (Qh2)} Ne6 {0.11/25 0} 49. Qf1+ {0.11/28 0} Nf4
{0.11/27 0} 50. Kb4 {0.11/24 0 (Qh1)} N6d5+ {0.11/23 0} 51. Ka3 {0.11/27 0} Ke5
{0.11/26 0} 52. Qa1+ {0.11/27 0} Kf5 {0.11/27 0} 53. Qh8 {0.11/28 0} Ne6 {0.11/
26 0} 54. Qh7+ {0.11/25 0 (Qh5+)} Ke5 {0.11/25 0} 55. Qh5+ {0.11/25 0} Kd4 {0.
11/26 0} 56. Qd1+ {0.11/25 1} Ke5 {0.11/25 0} 57. Qa1+ {0.11/25 0} Kf5 {0.11/
25 0} 58. Qh8 {0.11/26 0} Ndf4 {0.11/22 0} 59. Qh7+ {0.11/25 0} Ke5 {0.11/25 0}
60. Kb4 {0.11/25 0} Nd5+ {0.11/18 0} 61. Kc4 {0.11/25 0} Nd6+ {0.11/24 0} 62.
Kd3 {0.11/25 0} Nf6 {0.11/23 0} 63. Qh2+ {0.11/25 0} Nf4+ {0.11/26 0} 64. Kc2 {
0.11/28 1} Nde4 {0.11/25 0} 65. Qg1 {0.11/27 0} Ne6 {0.11/26 0} 66. Qa1+ {0.11/
26 0} Kf5 {0.11/27 0} 67. Qb1 {0.11/27 0 (Kb3)} Nd4+ {0.11/17 0 (N6c5)} 68. Kb2
{0.11/23 0} Ke5 {0.11/22 0} 69. Qg1 {0.11/23 0} Ne6 {0.11/22 0} 70. Kb3 {0.11/
24 0} N6c5+ {0.11/24 0} 71. Kb4 {0.11/25 0} Nd3+ {0.11/24 0} 72. Kc4 {0.11/25 0
} Nb2+ {0.11/24 0} 73. Kb3 {0.11/23 0 (Kb5)} Nd3 {0.11/23 0} 74. Qa1+ {0.11/24
0} Kf5 {0.11/25 0} 75. Qf1+ {0.11/22 0 (Kc2)} Ke5 {0.11/22 0} 76. Kc2 {0.11/23
0} Ndc5 {0.11/22 0 (Nb4+)} 77. Qa1+ {0.11/22 1} Kf4 {0.11/16 0} 78. Kb2 {0.11/
20 0 (Qa8)} Kf5 {0.11/19 0 (Ke5)} 79. Ka3 {0.11/18 0} Nd5 {0.11/17 0} 80. Qd1 {
0.04/19 1} Nf4 {0.04/13 0} 81. Qh1 {0.00/16 0 (Kb4)} Nfd3 {0.00/16 0 (Ke5)} 82.
Qh5+ {0.00/19 0} Kf4 {0.00/20 0} 83. Qd1 {0.00/21 0 (Qh2+)} 1/2-1/2

[Event "Shootout (Stockfish864POPCNT, Blitz 1m)"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "New game"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2nnknn1/3nnn2/8/8/8/8/8/2QQKQ2 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "170"]

1. Qf2 {7.37/15 6} Ngf6 {6.62/17 4} 2. Qg1 {6.16/15 2 (Qa4)} Ncd6 {5.93/18 4
(Nfe6)} 3. Kf1 {5.65/17 2} Nfe6 {5.03/17 2} 4. Qb3 {4.75/16 3 (Qa3)} Nde4 {4.
34/16 2} 5. Qh3 {4.27/15 1} Ned5 {4.25/19 2} 6. Qc2 {4.23/16 0 (Qb2)} Nef4 {4.
04/19 1} 7. Qa3 {4.00/18 1} Nec3 {3.95/20 2} 8. Qcf2 {4.07/18 0} Nde5 {3.90/21
1} 9. Qg7 {3.85/19 1} Nfe6 {3.82/22 2} 10. Qfxf6 {3.89/19 0 (Qgxf6)} Nxf6 {3.
83/21 1} 11. Qxf6 {3.77/19 1} Nd5 {3.70/19 1} 12. Qf5 {3.79/20 2} Nef4 {3.58/
22 2} 13. Kg1 {3.58/20 1 (Qa7)} Nde6 {3.28/20 2} 14. Qc2 {3.43/19 1 (Qe4)} Nfg5
{3.08/21 1} 15. Qa7 {3.08/22 1} Ndc7 {3.08/24 1} 16. Qf5 {3.08/24 1 (Qaa4+)}
Ned3 {3.08/26 2} 17. Qb8+ {3.08/23 0 (Qf6)} Kd7 {3.08/27 3} 18. Qb6 {2.93/25 4}
Ncd5 {2.86/26 4} 19. Qa7+ {2.79/19 0} Kd6 {2.79/24 1} 20. Kh1 {2.79/24 1 (Qa6+)
} Nf3 {2.53/25 4} 21. Qff7 {1.83/18 1 (Qe4)} Ke5 {1.81/19 1} 22. Qh7 {0.60/18 1
} Nec5 {0.37/20 1} 23. Qa1+ {0.29/20 1} Kd6 {0.32/22 1} 24. Qh6+ {0.27/20 1}
Nce6 {0.27/23 1} 25. Qf1 {0.27/23 2} Nd2 {0.25/21 1} 26. Qg1 {0.23/21 0} Ne4 {
0.20/22 2} 27. Qa1 {0.19/22 2} Ndf2+ {0.18/21 1} 28. Kg1 {0.16/22 1} Ne2+ {0.
16/22 1} 29. Kf1 {0.16/21 0} N2g3+ {0.16/21 1} 30. Kg2 {0.16/23 1} Ndf4+ {0.16/
23 1} 31. Kf3 {0.16/24 2} Nge2 {0.16/24 0} 32. Qa3+ {0.15/21 1 (Qag7)} Kd5 {0.
15/22 1} 33. Qa8+ {0.15/22 1} Kc4 {0.15/21 0} 34. Qc8+ {0.15/18 0 (Qc6+)} Kb4 {
0.12/19 0} 35. Qb7+ {0.14/20 1 (Qhxe6)} Kc3 {0.12/19 0 (Kc4)} 36. Qc6+ {0.12/
20 0} Kb4 {0.12/21 0} 37. Qb6+ {0.12/21 1} Kc3 {0.12/20 0} 38. Qe3+ {0.12/22 1}
Kb4 {0.12/23 0} 39. Qxe6 {0.12/23 0} Nxe6 {0.12/23 0} 40. Kxe2 {0.12/22 0} N6c5
{0.12/22 0} 41. Qd4+ {0.12/23 0} Kb5 {0.12/24 0} 42. Qa1 {0.11/24 1 (Ke3)} Nfd3
{0.11/24 0} 43. Qb1+ {0.11/20 1 (Ke3)} Kc4 {0.11/22 0} 44. Ke3 {0.11/24 0} Nc3
{0.11/24 0} 45. Qb8 {0.11/23 2} Nd5+ {0.11/19 0} 46. Kf3 {0.11/20 0} Ne1+ {0.
11/19 0} 47. Kg4 {0.11/21 0} Ned3 {0.11/21 0} 48. Kf5 {0.11/22 0} Ne3+ {0.11/
22 0} 49. Kg6 {0.11/23 0} Nd5 {0.11/22 0} 50. Qh2 {0.11/22 1} Kd4 {0.11/20 0}
51. Qg1+ {0.11/22 2} Kc4 {0.11/15 0 (Kc3)} 52. Qa1 {0.11/20 0} Ne4 {0.11/19 0}
53. Qa4+ {0.11/21 0} N3b4 {0.11/22 0} 54. Kf5 {0.11/21 0} Nc5 {0.11/21 0} 55.
Qa8 {0.11/20 0} Ne3+ {0.11/18 0 (Nbd3)} 56. Kf4 {0.09/19 0} Ned5+ {0.09/19 0}
57. Ke5 {0.09/22 0} Nbd3+ {0.09/21 0} 58. Kf5 {0.09/22 0} Ne3+ {0.09/21 0} 59.
Kg5 {0.09/23 0} Nb4 {0.09/23 0} 60. Qa1 {0.09/20 0 (Kh6)} Nbd5 {0.09/19 0} 61.
Kg6 {0.09/22 0 (Qa2+)} Nc3 {0.09/19 0 (Kd3)} 62. Qa7 {0.09/22 0} Ned5 {0.09/20
0 (Kd4)} 63. Kf5 {0.09/22 0} Ne3+ {0.09/22 0} 64. Kf4 {0.09/23 0} Ned5+ {0.09/
23 0} 65. Ke5 {0.10/23 0 (Kf3)} Nd3+ {0.10/22 0} 66. Kf5 {0.09/22 0} Nc5 {0.09/
21 0} 67. Qf7 {0.09/20 0} Ne2 {0.09/19 0} 68. Qg8 {0.09/20 0} Nd4+ {0.09/19 0}
69. Kg4 {0.09/21 0} Nb5 {0.09/19 0} 70. Kf3 {0.09/23 0} Nbc3 {0.09/23 0} 71.
Qg4+ {0.09/24 0} Kd3 {0.09/25 0} 72. Qg1 {0.09/25 0} Kc4 {0.09/23 0} 73. Qa1 {
0.09/25 0} Nd3 {0.09/24 0} 74. Qa6+ {0.09/24 0} Kd4 {0.09/23 0} 75. Qa7+ {0.09/
24 0} Kc4 {0.09/24 0} 76. Qa1 {0.09/19 0 (Kg4)} Nc5 {0.09/20 0} 77. Kg4 {0.09/
22 0 (Qg1)} Nd3 {0.09/14 0 (N5e4)} 78. Qa6+ {0.09/13 0 (Qg1)} Kd4 {0.08/16 0}
79. Kf5 {0.09/16 0 (Kf3)} Nc5 {0.08/14 0 (Ne3+)} 80. Qa1 {0.08/15 0 (Qa8)} Ne3+
{0.08/13 0} 81. Kf6 {0.08/13 0} Kd3 {0.09/12 0} 82. Qa7 {0.08/14 0 (Ke5)} Ned5+
{0.08/13 0 (N5e4+)} 83. Ke5 {0.01/14 0 (Kf7)} Kc4 {0.00/14 0} 84. Qa1 {0.00/17
0 (Qf7)} Nd3+ {0.00/19 0} 85. Kf5 {0.00/23 0} Ne3+ {0.00/23 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

very obviously, any claims the knights are stronger are simply incorrect.

any specific game results with this imbalance would be only due to engine lack of knowledge, or specific biassed positions.

as simple as that.

You are wrong. When there are no pawns such as the position above, modified Rodent as Black will not allow Q for 2N trades. At least not when the time control is 5' + 3". It wins against everybody, including against itself.

The only positions where 7N (modified Rodent) consistently loses against 3Q (Komodo) are those with disconnected pawns and large pawn spans. The greater mobility of the queens allows pressure to quickly swing from one side to the other side. This allows Komodo to eventually promote a pawn to a queen and gain the edge.

[Milos]

You are wrong. When there are no pawns such as the position above, modified Rodent as Black will not allow Q for 2N trades. At least not when the time control is 5' + 3". It wins against everybody, including against itself.

The only positions where 7N (modified Rodent) consistently loses against 3Q (Komodo) are those with disconnected pawns and large pawn spans. The greater mobility of the queens allows pressure to quickly swing from one side to the other side. This allows Komodo to eventually promote a pawn to a queen and gain the edge.

Problem is that for this particular type of positions (3Q vs 7N) engines are obviously not properly tuned. And it would require quite some time to get it tuned.
It is enough just to reduce the QueenValue in SF and it destroys normal SF or Queeny in every single game black or white from any single 3Q vs 7N starting position. I don't have modified Rodent or newest Komodo to try, but I believe it would beat them also with ease both playing white or black.
I believe these type of positions (3Q vs. 7N) are pretty balanced (some of them maybe slightly favour 7N side) but it is almost impossible to claim it for sure, before you manage to properly tune the strongest existing engine (SF) for them.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

how do I know then how both engines evaluate the respective game positions?

Analyze with both engines simultaneously in the same GUI?

Run each of the engines in its own GUI, and set them analyzing?

using different guis is extremely user-unfriendly, even winboard was created to get rid of that nuisance, and you know that pretty well.

in order to save time, one should use same gui and similar-looking concepts for all engines.

Who says you have to use different GUIs? If you run each engine in its own GUI, you can use two instance of the same GUI (e.g. WinBoard). I usually have 4 instances of WinBoard open on my screan when analyzing, because I want to analyze 4 different positions at the time.

But when you want to run them on the same position, you can simply analyze them with two engines in one GUI.

I can not even stand one instance of winboard, and you want me to stand 5...

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

No point in testing that, it's fairly obvious since trading Q for 2N, or even 3Q for 5N, leaves the Knight side without mate potential, and the Queens are strong enough that Black cannot avoid such a trade.

Actually it is not so obvious that the Queens are strong enough for that. After 4 QueeNy self-play games it is 3.5-0.5 for the Knights. QueeNy does strive for Q-for-2N trades with the Queens, but with equal tactical ability it just cannot find a way to force any before the Knights can inflict damage. Funny enough the first thing the Knights see typically seems to be a quite complex 2Q-for-3N trade! It is biased to ignore any Q-for-2N opportunities, but thinks 2Q-for-3N is a good deal (2*9.5 for 3*5). You then immediately end up in 4N vs. Q, which (in the kind of compact positions you typically convert to) should be an easy win for the Knights.

Unfortunately it is absolutely clueless for how to win KNNNNKQ, and often aimlessly wanders the Knight pack to one side of the board, while the enemy King is at the other side. I suppose a strong attractive evaluation term between the Kings would solve this. If it happens to wander close, a mate threat comes within the horizon, typically delayed by a final Q-for-N trade, and a KNNNK mate.

So I get the impression that even without Pawns it is an easy win for the Knights. Of course the fact that Lyudmil claimed it was not so, was already a convincing indication for that.

you are talking BS.

no matter what engine you are using and at what TC, this always ends in a draw.

I suppose Queeny is the only engine in the whole universe able to self-lose that.

maybe you should check your code.