12 Sep 05
Originally posted by DeepfaultThe post I directed you to answered that; there is nothing that "needs to be done to keep me here"; I have decided for the reasons given to leave.
Yes it does..... but only in part.
So you are still going, your profile does not seem to have changed to me, at least in tone if not in content.
Still no info, either in your profile or your posts of what still needs to be done to keep you here though.
I was being a smarta** yes and it has taken super human effort not to continue being one.
So reward me now for my compliance and answer the last part of my question please.
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder[EDIT] The question would have been a lot easier to interpret if you had only quoted the part of my post that the question related to.
Is the question toooooooooo difficult?? Do you have a tablebase installed in your engine(s) covering the incredibly rare Q+K v. R+P+K endgame?
To answer your question, no, but then I don't even have an opening database installed, or any tablebase.
Neither was I the number 1 'engine user' on here, having beaten most of the top players and any number of engines, without having basic endgame knowledge that any kind of half decent player would have.
D
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by RagnorakThese "points" have been addressed elsewhere. I remain unsure whether such a tablebase exists for such a rare endgame; if anyone has a tablebase covering a K + Q v. K + R + P, I'd appreciate hearing from them. I doubt IM ever had one occur in any of his games before that here; as I stated, I can never remember it happening to me in 40 years of chess. The main point was a strong player if he didn't remember the winning technique would have looked it up, but our superstrong, better than GM "no1" player simply made moves which matched engine moves and were getting him nowhere until I blundered. I'd say that is highly indicative of engine use, not strong human play.
[EDIT] The question would have been a lot easier to interpret if you had only quoted the part of my post that the question related to.
To answer your question, no, but then I don't even have an opening database installed, or any tablebase.
Neither was I the number 1 'engine user' on here, having beaten most of the top players and any number of en ...[text shortened]... nes, without having basic endgame knowledge that any kind of half decent player would have.
D
13 Sep 05
2 edits
I found this site which has the Nalimov tablebases and they do, indeed, have a K + Q v. K + R + P endgame. I put in the original FEN position of my game with IM with him to move on move 47: the tablebase gives Black having mate in 38 moves. IM make the next 10 moves EXACTLY as the tablebase says. He then varies on move 57 with a move that has a mate calculation of 31 moves rather than the optimal 28, but sets me up to put him in check, a blunder which hastens the process. No one said he wasn't clever. So apparently he did have the endgame tablebases and used them.
The site is: http://www.lokasoft.nl/uk/tbweb.htm
The initial FEN position was: 8/2k5/8/4K3/3R2P1/8/6q1/8 b
The game is: Game 1185140
13 Sep 05
1 edit
I would also add that this is quite damning as the procedure given in the tablebase varies radically from the winning procedure set forth in endgame books. For the human player, the expert advice is to maneuver to capture the last pawn, after which a Queen v. Rook ending is a fairly simple win. Obviously a human could not see a mate in 38 moves! But the tablebase did and that is the procedure IM followed.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderOn re-analyzing the game using the Nalimov site, I realized I made an error. IM's move 57 WAS the tablebase move; in fact, ALL his moves from move 47 (the first with K+Q v. K+R+P) until the final one, move 65 were the first choice tablebase moves! 19 in all.
I found this site which has the Nalimov tablebases and they do, indeed, have a K + Q v. K + R + P endgame. I put in the original FEN position of my game with IM with him to move on move 47: the tablebase gives Black having mate in 38 moves. IM make the next 10 moves EXACTLY as the tablebase says. He then varies on move 57 with a move that has a mate calc ...[text shortened]...
The initial FEN position was: 8/2k5/8/4K3/3R2P1/8/6q1/8 b
The game is: Game 1185140
You were saying, Ragnorak??
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat endgame books are you referring to? The procedure followed seems quite logical to me (which is not a claim that no tablebases were used, but still....) Have you also checked how white does, compared to the same tablebases? On what basis did white resign on move 65, and not 5 or 10 moves before (or later)? Because the winning pattern did not change at all in that phase.
I would also add that this is quite damning as the procedure given in the tablebase varies radically from the winning procedure set forth in endgame books. For the human player, the expert advice is to maneuver to capture the last pawn, after which a Queen v. Rook ending is a fairly simple win. Obviously a human could not see a mate in 38 moves! But the tablebase did and that is the procedure IM followed.
edit: and yes, the procedure that black followed was exactly to try to win the pawn first ... using threats on mate and on the rook.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2What game are you looking at??? Black never goes anywhere near the pawn! From Fine's Basic Chess Endings p. 577: "With Queen v. rook and pawn, Black [the inferior side is always Black in Fine] must have his rook, king, and pawn close together to have any drawing chances at all. If White [the side with the Queen] gets his king behind the pawn he will always win." When does Black start attempting to get "his King behind the pawn"?
What endgame books are you referring to? The procedure followed seems quite logical to me (which is not a claim that no tablebases were used, but still....) Have you also checked how white does, compared to the same tablebases? On what basis did white resign on move 65, and not 5 or 10 moves before (or later)? Because the winning pattern did not change at ...[text shortened]... ack followed was exactly to try to win the pawn first ... using threats on mate and on the rook.
ALL 19 moves of IM's are the no1 tablebase move. Copy the game moves, put the FEN into the site and see for yourself.
I resigned because I didn't see any move that prevents the loss of the Rook in the next few moves. Move 58 was a blunder, but it really didn't matter as IM's tablebase had a mate in under 50 moves even if I had played perfectly (which I didn't).
13 Sep 05
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauder"What game are you looking at???"
What game are you looking at??? Black never goes anywhere near the pawn! From Fine's Basic Chess Endings p. 577: "With Queen v. rook and pawn, Black [the inferior side is always Black in Fine] must have his rook, king, and pawn close together to have any drawing chances at all. If White [the side with the Queen] gets his king behind the pawn he will al ...[text shortened]... s IM's tablebase had a mate in under 50 moves even if I had played perfectly (which I didn't).
Don't give us that crap! From the rest of the post you prove to know that perfectly.
Fine is fine with me (I haven't read it, so I assume he knows what he is talking about). I do not see a contradiction, though, since the tactics were pretty obvious, and very similar to the endgame without the pawn. With the pawn not advanced very far, like in this case, the endgame can be treated as a K+Q vs K+R (+ a little something which may or may not become relevant). Doesn't Fine tell you this?
"but it really didn't matter as IM's tablebase had a mate in under 50 moves even if I had played perfectly (which I didn't"
Do not use that as an argument, since this is what you want to prove. That is called circular reasoning.
I forgot (or didn't you tell us), what was white's match with your tablebase?
edit. I am still not claiming anything else than that you are so fixated on your crusade that you simply do not accept any argument against it. A good example of Bayes' Theorem.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2Don't give me your crap; are you sure you've read ANY endgame books? Name me an endgame book that says its proper strategy to simply ignore the pawn.
"What game are you looking at???"
Don't give us that crap! From the rest of the post you prove to know that perfectly.
Fine is fine with me (I haven't read it, so I assume he knows what he is talking about). I do not see a contradiction, though, since the tactics were pretty obvious, and very similar to the endgame without the pawn. With the pawn n ...[text shortened]... rusade that you simply do not accept any argument against it. A good example of Bayes' Theorem.
I didn't even check White's matches with a tablebase; why would I? I know I didn't use one! If I had I would have resigned on move 47 because I would have known I was going to be mated in 38 moves! I gave you all the information you need; go run it through in an attempt to "prove" I used a tablebase to lose a game!
Black made no progress at all that is discernible until my blunder on move 58. Of course, using a tablebase you can say that Black had moved 10 moves closer to his mate in 38! But a human looking at the game sees no progress in gaining the pawn which in what the endgame books say Black is supposed to be doing. You haven't really disputed that because you can't; you instead "discovered" a technique whereby Black ignores the pawn! Well if you know you have mate in 38 I guess you can do that, but I'd like to see a human being announce mate in 38 and ignore endgame principles!
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderHow about you show Mephisto how it should be done.
Don't give me your crap; are you sure you've read ANY endgame books? Name me an endgame book that says its proper strategy to simply ignore the pawn.
I didn't even check White's matches with a tablebase; why would I? I know I didn't use one! If I had I would have resigned on move 47 because I would have known I was going to be mated in 38 m ...[text shortened]... n do that, but I'd like to see a human being announce mate in 38 and ignore endgame principles!
Could be like your farewell game. I'd pay to see the spectacle. 🙂
D
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by RagnorakGlad to see ya. 19 straight moves right out of a tablebase and a lot of them were ones where there were many possibilities which only varied the mate a move or two. Yet IM made every single 1st choice. Whaddya think? Should he just have announced "mate in 38" on move 47?
How about you show Mephisto how it should be done.
Could be like your farewell game. I'd pay to see the spectacle. 🙂
D
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, I read a few books on endgames. Thanks for the tip, though. Unless I missed something, your opponent surely did not 'announce' mate in 38, did he? And please, explain to the community why and how this endgame (and what I said) "ignores endgame principle"(s).
[b]Don't give me your crap; are you sure you've read ANY endgame books? Name me an endgame book that says its proper strategy to simply ignore the pawn.
I didn't even check White's matches with a tablebase; why would I? I know I didn't use one! If I had I would have resigned on move 47 because I would have known I was going to be mated in 38 m ...[text shortened]... an do that, but I'd like to see a human being announce mate in 38 and ignore endgame principles![/b
The reason I was insisting on checking white's match with your tablebases is because also white's moves seem to be very logical to me. But of course, your opponent was using, not you ... why then would you check your moves? And no, I am not trying to prove that you were using tablebases (despite the fact that you see to master them well, unlike myself), I am only questioning your attitude. You are so centered on your 'I know it' that you interprete everything in that context - Bayes' Theorem, as I said before.
Finally, and this ends my contribution to this thread, I am disgusted about your debate tactics to make me "discover" (yes, the quotes are the disgusting part) a technique. If you don't understand that point, then how did you ever reach your rating level?
Bye.
13 Sep 05
Originally posted by Mephisto2Actually, I had never even seen a tablebase until today. I explained. quoting Fine (you would concede his expertise I assume), what the proper technique was which was to keep the King and rook away from and eventually win the pawn. This is NOT the technique adopted by IM. By using his tablebase, he knew he had mate in 38 and he followed the tablebase moves to the letter.
Yes, I read a few books on endgames. Thanks for the tip, though. Unless I missed something, your opponent surely did not 'announce' mate in 38, did he? And please, explain to the community why and how this endgame (and what I said) "ignores endgame principle"(s).
The reason I was insisting on checking white's match with your tablebases is because ...[text shortened]... ue. If you don't understand that point, then how did you ever reach your rating level?
Bye.
Many of my moves were absolutely forced or I would have immediately lost the rook (or I only had one move). Your question as to why I resigned is very odd, as the rook is lost as far as I can see. I could have resigned earlier, but when my opponent was showing he didn't understand the winning technique, I figured I'd try for the 50 move rule draw. Obviously this would never have succeeded as even with perfect play on my part, Black had a 38 move mate. I guess I overlooked it even at my "rating level". Go figure.