Is this positions drawn ??

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw

User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by George Tsavdaris »

Dann Corbit wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote: There is nothing important in this position, and endgame table bases have already proved that.
Sorry, but there are no 7 man tablebase files with pawns constructed. There are no chess engines I know of that have resolved it either, by elimation of chessmen. There is no proof for this position, only highly probable speculation.
Have you heard about Freezer?
It can solve such positions! In fact it is ideal for such positions. It can generate solutions to 7-8 piece problems even if you don't have (obviously!) the 7-8 piece tablebases and only have 6 or even 5 piece tablebases.....
Uri Blass
Posts: 10310
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: Is this positions drawn ??

Post by Uri Blass »

Terry McCracken wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I agree that this is more convincing and can be used for what I consider as a real proof that I am lazy to construct(I still do not consider it as a proof inspite of the fact that it convinced me).

I think that black even does not need the quare a6 and can do fine even on 7*7 board with only c6 and b6

In order to construct a proof that I am too lazy to do we pracitcally need simply to divide the possible pair of squares of white king and white queen to 12 classes and give the corresponding squares of black king and rook in every class.

After this we need to prove that after white does a move in one of the classes black can capture the queen or make a move that goes to one of the classes.

Uri
Huh??

Robin gave proof, and it's quite simple :roll:

Page One.... http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 72&start=0
Robin's post is convincing but I do not consider it as a proof.
I simply disagree with you about the meaning of the word proof.

Robin gave a strategy to draw the game.
A proof should prove that the strategy is really possible and that white cannot do something different that I did not imagine.

I am not sure if we practically need to do what I suggested and it is only one way to prove the draw.

Thinking about again it may be more simpler to prove that the strategy that Robin suggested is possible but it needs proof.

Here is part of the proof that you need to write in order to prove it based on my standards and not only in order to convince me(I added comments to Robin comments inside the ().

2) If the king is in check, move out of check to any one of the squares h7, g8, h8(possible but need proof because the queen may control all 3 squares from g7 and if the white king is at f8 white is winning
the white king can never go to f8 but in order to prove that black draw we need to mention the possible squares of the white king and prove that white cannot escape them in every one of the cases)

3) If the rook is not on f6 move the rook to f6(possible assuming the rook is not pinned but the rook cannot be pinned when the black king is at h7 g8 h8 and the rook is at f6 f2 c6 b6 a6).

Uri
Terry McCracken

Re: Is this positions drawn ??

Post by Terry McCracken »

Uri Blass wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
Uri Blass wrote:I agree that this is more convincing and can be used for what I consider as a real proof that I am lazy to construct(I still do not consider it as a proof inspite of the fact that it convinced me).

I think that black even does not need the quare a6 and can do fine even on 7*7 board with only c6 and b6

In order to construct a proof that I am too lazy to do we pracitcally need simply to divide the possible pair of squares of white king and white queen to 12 classes and give the corresponding squares of black king and rook in every class.

After this we need to prove that after white does a move in one of the classes black can capture the queen or make a move that goes to one of the classes.

Uri
Huh??

Robin gave proof, and it's quite simple :roll:

Page One.... http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 72&start=0
Robin's post is convincing but I do not consider it as a proof.
I simply disagree with you about the meaning of the word proof.

Robin gave a strategy to draw the game.
A proof should prove that the strategy is really possible and that white cannot do something different that I did not imagine.

I am not sure if we practically need to do what I suggested and it is only one way to prove the draw.

Thinking about again it may be more simpler to prove that the strategy that Robin suggested is possible but it needs proof.

Here is part of the proof that you need to write in order to prove it based on my standards and not only in order to convince me(I added comments to Robin comments inside the ().

2) If the king is in check, move out of check to any one of the squares h7, g8, h8(possible but need proof because the queen may control all 3 squares from g7 and if the white king is at f8 white is winning
the white king can never go to f8 but in order to prove that black draw we need to mention the possible squares of the white king and prove that white cannot escape them in every one of the cases)

3) If the rook is not on f6 move the rook to f6(possible assuming the rook is not pinned but the rook cannot be pinned when the black king is at h7 g8 h8 and the rook is at f6 f2 c6 b6 a6).

Uri
Uri, George posted a link above, the utility you need for your final proof is
Freezer.

If this can't give a proof, then you'll have to run a hundred plys full width!

In ten years that might not be a problem :wink:

Terry
Terry McCracken

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by Terry McCracken »

George Tsavdaris wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote: There is nothing important in this position, and endgame table bases have already proved that.
Sorry, but there are no 7 man tablebase files with pawns constructed. There are no chess engines I know of that have resolved it either, by elimation of chessmen. There is no proof for this position, only highly probable speculation.
Have you heard about Freezer?
It can solve such positions! In fact it is ideal for such positions. It can generate solutions to 7-8 piece problems even if you don't have (obviously!) the 7-8 piece tablebases and only have 6 or even 5 piece tablebases.....
George, if you have the program, please demonstrate to the skeptics, that this is indeed a drawn position.

Terry
User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1627
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:35 pm

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by George Tsavdaris »

Terry McCracken wrote:
George Tsavdaris wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote: There is nothing important in this position, and endgame table bases have already proved that.
Sorry, but there are no 7 man tablebase files with pawns constructed. There are no chess engines I know of that have resolved it either, by elimation of chessmen. There is no proof for this position, only highly probable speculation.
Have you heard about Freezer?
It can solve such positions! In fact it is ideal for such positions. It can generate solutions to 7-8 piece problems even if you don't have (obviously!) the 7-8 piece tablebases and only have 6 or even 5 piece tablebases.....
George, if you have the program, please demonstrate to the skeptics, that this is indeed a drawn position.
I have the program and i have all the 6 piece tablebases but right now i can't use them. Maybe tomorrow or inside the new week....
Uri Blass
Posts: 10310
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:37 am
Location: Tel-Aviv Israel

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by Uri Blass »

Terry McCracken wrote:
George Tsavdaris wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote: There is nothing important in this position, and endgame table bases have already proved that.
Sorry, but there are no 7 man tablebase files with pawns constructed. There are no chess engines I know of that have resolved it either, by elimation of chessmen. There is no proof for this position, only highly probable speculation.
Have you heard about Freezer?
It can solve such positions! In fact it is ideal for such positions. It can generate solutions to 7-8 piece problems even if you don't have (obviously!) the 7-8 piece tablebases and only have 6 or even 5 piece tablebases.....
George, if you have the program, please demonstrate to the skeptics, that this is indeed a drawn position.

Terry
It should be an easy task to write a program that proves that it is a draw
but a program that comes with no source code proves nothing for people who do not see the source because they cannot be 100% sure that it has no bugs.

Uri
Terry McCracken

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by Terry McCracken »

Uri Blass wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
George Tsavdaris wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote: There is nothing important in this position, and endgame table bases have already proved that.
Sorry, but there are no 7 man tablebase files with pawns constructed. There are no chess engines I know of that have resolved it either, by elimation of chessmen. There is no proof for this position, only highly probable speculation.
Have you heard about Freezer?
It can solve such positions! In fact it is ideal for such positions. It can generate solutions to 7-8 piece problems even if you don't have (obviously!) the 7-8 piece tablebases and only have 6 or even 5 piece tablebases.....
George, if you have the program, please demonstrate to the skeptics, that this is indeed a drawn position.

Terry
It should be an easy task to write a program that proves that it is a draw
but a program that comes with no source code proves nothing for people who do not see the source because they cannot be 100% sure that it has no bugs.

Uri
This is just over the top....ok then, only God can know...sigh...
Terry McCracken

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by Terry McCracken »

George Tsavdaris wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
George Tsavdaris wrote:
Dann Corbit wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote: There is nothing important in this position, and endgame table bases have already proved that.
Sorry, but there are no 7 man tablebase files with pawns constructed. There are no chess engines I know of that have resolved it either, by elimation of chessmen. There is no proof for this position, only highly probable speculation.
Have you heard about Freezer?
It can solve such positions! In fact it is ideal for such positions. It can generate solutions to 7-8 piece problems even if you don't have (obviously!) the 7-8 piece tablebases and only have 6 or even 5 piece tablebases.....
George, if you have the program, please demonstrate to the skeptics, that this is indeed a drawn position.
I have the program and i have all the 6 piece tablebases but right now i can't use them. Maybe tomorrow or inside the new week....
Thanks George...although Uri won't be satisfied...maybe he should write a program and make sure there isn't any bugs :roll:

Terry
Alessandro Scotti

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by Alessandro Scotti »

Terry McCracken wrote:
Uri Blass wrote: It should be an easy task to write a program that proves that it is a draw
but a program that comes with no source code proves nothing for people who do not see the source because they cannot be 100% sure that it has no bugs.
This is just over the top....ok then, only God can know...sigh...
Hey I started looking at this thread for some chess fun and I'm left wondering if I exist, let alone if the position is draw! :shock:
Terry McCracken

Re: ComputerChess is bad for you !!

Post by Terry McCracken »

Alessandro Scotti wrote:
Terry McCracken wrote:
Uri Blass wrote: It should be an easy task to write a program that proves that it is a draw
but a program that comes with no source code proves nothing for people who do not see the source because they cannot be 100% sure that it has no bugs.
This is just over the top....ok then, only God can know...sigh...
Hey I started looking at this thread for some chess fun and I'm left wondering if I exist, let alone if the position is draw! :shock:
Believe me, I know exactly how you feel.

Terry