he is lying about it, or his engine is nuts.Evert wrote:Impressive, and somewhat counter-intuitive. Of course, intuition is unneeded in the presence of actual data.hgm wrote: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.Evert wrote: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.
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.
it is impossible not to draw that, but you can easily check that yourself.