Originally posted by ploerdTo answer your question, the defending king must head for the corner of the opposite colour to his bishop in which case, it's a draw.
Is it possible to win a game when one player has a rook and a king and the opponent still has a bishop and king left on the board?
Assume best possible defence and a non-threatening position to for both players.
Regards,
Sjoerd
Originally posted by bosintangNot true according to Gatecrashers's comments. Clearly excluded are the thousands of games published from the CEGT tournaments (all engine), and also apparently excluded is the interesting novelty 10.Re3 from the position below.
Any published theory is ok.
For those of you not up on chess history, 10.Re3 was Deep Fritz's novelty in the final game of its man vs machine match with Vladimir Kramnik last fall. As it is a computer move, it is forbidden (at least that is how I read Gatecrasher's comments).
Originally posted by WulebgrDon't be stupid. 10. Re3 while a Novelty will make its way into opening books. Where do you think opening novelties come from? If you however followed Fritz 10's recommendation move by move in that or any other games that will lead you to the doghouse. Perhaps the moderators should lock the post to prevent users trolling?
[fen]r1b1k2r/1pq1bppp/p1nppn2/8/3NP3/1BN5/PPP2PPP/R1BQR1K1 w kq - 0 10[/fen]
For those of you not up on chess history, 10.Re3 was Deep Fritz's novelty in the final game of its man vs machine match with Vladimir Kramnik last fall. As it is a computer move, it is forbidden (at least that is how I read Gatecrasher's comments).
1. Basically if you remember a "great engine move" or use a tablebase how would the moderators know?
2. This is just a thought, say you use the tablebase to get a won endgame and then start using the 2nd or 3rd best moves surely that is cheating that would not be detected, or would be even more suspect.
3. Has anyone ever been banned for obvious use of tablebases and what do their games look like?
origiannly posted by Gatecrasher
In recent times we have seen more and more engine-vs-engine games added to chess databases which is very unfortunate, because it give rise to the very type of question you are asking, and makes it more difficult to destinguish between database and engine, theory and calculation.
From what I can gather the database you want to use is perfectly legal. However, because it contains engine-vs-engine games, you take a risk using it much beyond the established opining lines.
Gatecrasher's comments focus on the risk to the player if the game is examined by the game mods, but his ambivalence regarding whether engine games appropriately belong in databases seems troubling.
I have several thousand engine-engine games, and quite a few human-engine games in my database. I think these and the computer analysis of any and all other games are legitimate, forming part of established theory.
There is a world of difference between firing up an engine to examine a game in progress, and looking at already stored engine analysis of the same position (or possible position) from a previous game.
Assuming that I have 10,000 engine-engine games in my database, they would comprise less than 0.4 % of the total.
The post that was quoted here has been removedI agree that it is not forbidden, but was trying to show, OTOH, that Gatecrasher's comments could be read so as to imply that it is. If you could argue your point instead of tossing little ineffective flames, we might get somewhere.
In what sense is my PM "bogus," oh wise one?
Engine use is clearly forbidden. Databases are clearly allowed. Databases containing engine-engine games are problematic and put the user at risk, according to Gatecrasher.
Let's get this thread back on topic.