The Nalimov tablebases, which use advanced compression techniques, require 7.05 GB of hard disk space for all five-piece endings. The six-piece endings require approximately 1.2 TB. The seven-piece Lomonosov tablebase requires 140 TB of storage space. So just storing an 8-man tablebase will require well over a petabyte of storage. User interface and public API for probing Syzygy endgame tablebases. Syzygy tablebases allow perfect play with up to 7 pieces, both with and without the. If you want to use tablebases in a chess engine you certainly need a local copy.
Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 36 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.
Sign up
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking âSign up for GitHubâ, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. Weâll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Comments
commented Apr 25, 2018
In changelog you mentioned
I was not successful to find these tablebases. Do you have any link?
|
commented Apr 25, 2018
Yes, some of the tables have been shared here: http://talkchess.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=66797. Other tables are still beeing generated. There's also a mirror hosted by Lichess: http://tablebase.lichess.ovh/tables/standard/7/
You will need well over 20 Terabyte of disk space to store all the tables, once they have been completed.
Note that it's very likely that there are still bugs, so you'll have to take the results with a grain of salt.
|
commented Apr 26, 2018
Thank you very much.
|
Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
An endgame tablebase is a computerized database that contains precalculated exhaustive analysis of chessendgame positions. It is typically used by a computer chess engine during play, or by a human or computer that is retrospectively analysing a game that has already been played.
The tablebase contains the game-theoretical value (win, loss, or draw) of each possible move in each possible position, and how many moves it would take to achieve that result with perfect play. Thus, the tablebase acts as an oracle, always providing the optimal moves. Typically the database records each possible position with certain pieces remaining on the board, and the best moves with White to move and with Black to move.
Tablebases are generated by retrograde analysis, working backwards from a checkmated position. By 2005, all chess positions with up to six pieces (including the two kings) had been solved. By August 2012, tablebases had solved chess for every position with up to seven pieces (the positions with a lone king versus a king and five pieces were omitted because they were considered to be 'rather obvious').[1][2]
The solutions have profoundly advanced the chess community's understanding of endgame theory. Some positions which humans had analyzed as draws were proven to be winnable; the tablebase analysis could find a mate in more than five hundred moves, far beyond the horizon of humans, and beyond the capability of a computer during play. For this reason, they have also called into question the 50-move rule since many positions are now seen to exist that are a win for one side but would be drawn because of the 50-move rule. Tablebases have enhanced competitive play and facilitated the composition of endgame studies. They provide a powerful analytical tool.
While endgame tablebases for other board games like checkers,[3]chess variants[4] or Nine Men's Morris[5] exist, when a game is not specified, it is assumed to be chess.
A typical interface for querying a tablebase
Background
Physical limitations of computer hardware aside, in principle it is possible to solve any game under the condition that the complete state is known and there is no random chance. Strong solutions, i.e. algorithms that can produce perfect play from any position,[6] are known for some simple games such as Tic Tac Toe/Noughts and crosses (draw with perfect play) and Connect Four (first player wins). Weak solutions exist for somewhat more complex games, such as checkers (with perfect play on both sides the game is known to be a draw, but it is not known for every position created by less-than-perfect play what the perfect next move would be). Other games, such as chess (from the starting position) and Go, have not been solved because their game complexity is far too vast for computers to evaluate all possible positions. To reduce the game complexity, researchers have modified these complex games by reducing the size of the board, or the number of pieces, or both.
Computer chess is one of the oldest domains of artificial intelligence, having begun in the early 1930s. Claude Shannon proposed formal criteria for evaluating chess moves in 1949. In 1951, Alan Turing designed a primitive chess playing program, which assigned values for material and mobility; the program 'played' chess based on Turing's manual calculations.[7] However, even as competent chess programs began to develop, they exhibited a glaring weakness in playing the endgame. Programmers added specific heuristics for the endgame â for example, the king should move to the center of the board.[8] However, a more comprehensive solution was needed.
In 1965, Richard Bellman proposed the creation of a database to solve chess and checkers endgames using retrograde analysis.[9][10] Instead of analyzing forward from the position currently on the board, the database would analyze backward from positions where one player was checkmated or stalemated. Thus, a chess computer would no longer need to analyze endgame positions during the game because they were solved beforehand. It would no longer make mistakes because the tablebase always played the best possible move.
In 1970, Thomas Ströhlein published a doctoral thesis[11][12] with analysis of the following classes of endgame: KQK, KRK, KPK, KQKR, KRKB, and KRKN.[13] In 1977 Thompson's KQKR database was used in a match versus GrandmasterWalter Browne.
Ken Thompson and others helped extend tablebases to cover all four- and five-piece endgames, including in particular KBBKN, KQPKQ, and KRPKR.[14][15] Lewis Stiller published a thesis with research on some six-piece tablebase endgames in 1995.[16][17]
More recent contributors have included the following people:
- Eugene Nalimov, after whom the popular Nalimov tablebases are named;
- Eiko Bleicher, who has adapted the tablebase concept to a program called 'Freezer' (see below);
- Guy Haworth, an academic at the University of Reading, who has published extensively in the ICGA Journal and elsewhere;
- Marc Bourzutschky and Yakov Konoval, who have collaborated to analyze endgames with seven pieces on the board;
- Peter Karrer, who constructed a specialized seven-piece tablebase (KQPPKQP) for the endgame of the Kasparov versus The World online match;
- Vladimir Makhnychev and Victor Zakharov from Moscow State University, who completed 4+3 DTM-tablebases (525 endings including KPPPKPP) in July 2012. The tablebases are named Lomonosov tablebases. The next set of 5+2 DTM-tablebases (350 endings including KPPPPKP) was completed during August 2012. The high speed of generating the tablebases was because of using a supercomputer named Lomonosov (top500). The size of all tablebases up to seven-man is about 140 TB.[18]
The tablebases of all endgames with up to seven pieces are available for free download, and may also be queried using web interfaces (see the external links below). Nalimov tablebase requires more than one terabyte of storage space.[19][20]
Generating tablebases
Metrics: Depth to conversion and depth to mate
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
Before creating a tablebase, a programmer must choose a metric of optimality â in other words, they must define at what point a player has 'won' the game. Every position can be defined by its distance (i.e. the number of moves) from the desired endpoint. Two metrics are generally used:
- Depth to mate (DTM). A checkmate is the only way to win a game.
- Depth to conversion (DTC). The stronger side can also win by capturing material, thus converting to a simpler endgame. For example, in KQKR, conversion occurs when White captures the Black rook.
Haworth has discussed two other metrics, namely 'depth to zeroing-move' (DTZ) and 'depth by the rule' (DTR). A zeroing-move is a move which resets the move count to zero under the fifty-move rule, i.e. mate, a capture, or a pawn move.[21] These metrics support the fifty-move rule, but DTR tablebases have not yet been computed. 7-man DTZ tablebases were made publicly available in August 2018.[22]
The difference between DTC and DTM can be understood by analyzing the diagram at right. How White should proceed depends on which metric is used.
Metric | Play | DTC | DTM |
---|---|---|---|
DTC | 1. Qxd1 Kc8 2. Qd2 Kb8 3. Qd8# | 1 | 3 |
DTM | 1. Qc7+ Ka8 2. Qa7# | 2 | 2 |
According to the DTC metric, White should capture the rook because that leads immediately to a position which will certainly win (DTC = 1), but it will take two more moves actually to checkmate (DTM = 3). In contrast according to the DTM metric, White mates in two moves, so DTM = DTC = 2.
This difference is typical of many endgames. Usually DTC is smaller than DTM, but the DTM metric leads to the quickest checkmate. Exceptions occur where the weaker side has only a king, and in the unusual endgame of two knights versus one pawn; then DTC = DTM because either there is no defending material to capture or capturing the material does no good. (Indeed, capturing the defending pawn in the latter endgame results in a draw, unless it results in immediate mate.)
Step 1: Generating all possible positions
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
The twenty four unique pawn squares (with symmetry)
Once a metric is chosen, the first step is to generate all the positions with a given material. For example, to generate a DTM tablebase for the endgame of king and queen versus king (KQK), the computer must describe approximately 40,000 unique legal positions.
Levy and Newborn explain that the number 40,000 derives from a symmetry argument. The Black king can be placed on any of ten squares: a1, b1, c1, d1, b2, c2, d2, c3, d3, and d4 (see diagram). On any other square, its position can be considered equivalent by symmetry of rotation or reflection. Thus, there is no difference whether a Black king in a corner resides on a1, a8, h8, or h1. Multiply this number of 10 by at most 60 (legal remaining) squares for placing the White king and then by at most 62 squares for the White queen. The product 10Ã60Ã62 = 37,200. Several hundred of these positions are illegal, impossible, or symmetrical reflections of each other, so the actual number is somewhat smaller.[23][24]
For each position, the tablebase evaluates the situation separately for White-to-move and Black-to-move. Assuming that White has the queen, almost all the positions are White wins, with checkmate forced in no more than ten moves. Some positions are draws because of stalemate or the unavoidable loss of the queen.
Each additional piece added to a pawnless endgame multiplies the number of unique positions by about a factor of sixty which is the approximate number of squares not already occupied by other pieces.
Endgames with one or more pawns increase the complexity because the symmetry argument is reduced. Since pawns can move forward but not sideways, rotation and vertical reflection of the board produces a fundamental change in the nature of the position.[25] The best calculation of symmetry is achieved by limiting one pawn to 24 squares in the rectangle a2-a7-d7-d2. All other pieces and pawns may be located in any of the 64 squares with respect to the pawn. Thus, an endgame with pawns has a complexity of 24/10 = 2.4 times a pawnless endgame with the same number of pieces.
Step 2: Evaluating positions using retrograde analysis
Tim Krabbé explains the process of generating a tablebase as follows:
'The idea is that a database is made with all possible positions with a given material [note: as in the preceding section]. Then a subdatabase is made of all positions where Black is mated. Then one where White can give mate. Then one where Black cannot stop White giving mate next move. Then one where White can always reach a position where Black cannot stop him from giving mate next move. And so on, always a ply further away from mate until all positions that are thus connected to mate have been found. Then all of these positions are linked back to mate by the shortest path through the database. That means that, apart from 'equi-optimal' moves, all the moves in such a path are perfect: White's move always leads to the quickest mate, Black's move always leads to the slowest mate.'[26]
The retrograde analysis is only necessary from the checkmated positions, because every position that cannot be reached by moving backwards from a checkmated position must be a draw.[27]
Figure 1 illustrates the idea of retrograde analysis. White can force mate in two moves by playing 1. Kc6, leading to the position in Figure 2. There are only two legal moves for black from this position, both of which lead to checkmate: if 1...Kb8 2. Qb7#, and if 1...Kd8 2. Qd7# (Figure 3).
Figure 3, before White's second move, is defined as 'mate in one ply.' Figure 2, after White's first move, is 'mate in two ply,' regardless of how Black plays. Finally, the initial position in Figure 1 is 'mate in three ply' (i.e., two moves) because it leads directly to Figure 2, which is already defined as 'mate in two ply.' This process, which links a current position to another position that could have existed one ply earlier, can continue indefinitely.
Each position is evaluated as a win or loss in a certain number of moves. At the end of the retrograde analysis, positions which are not designated as wins or losses are necessarily draws.
White to move: mate in three ply (Kc6)
|
Black to move: mate in two ply (Kd8 or Kb8)
|
White to move: mate in one ply (Qd7)
|
Step 3: Verification
After the tablebase has been generated, and every position has been evaluated, the result must be verified independently. The purpose is to check the self-consistency of the tablebase results.[28]
For example, in Figure 1 above, the verification program sees the evaluation 'mate in three ply (Kc6).' It then looks at the position in Figure 2, after Kc6, and sees the evaluation 'mate in two ply.' These two evaluations are consistent with each other. If the evaluation of Figure 2 were anything else, it would be inconsistent with Figure 1, so the tablebase would need to be corrected.
Captures, pawn promotion, and special moves
A four-piece tablebase must rely on three-piece tablebases that could result if one piece is captured. Similarly, a tablebase containing a pawn must be able to rely on other tablebases that deal with the new set of material after pawn promotion to a queen or other piece. The retrograde analysis program must account for the possibility of a capture or pawn promotion on the previous move.[29]
Tablebases assume that castling is not possible for two reasons. First, in practical endgames, this assumption is almost always correct. (However, castling is allowed by convention in composed problems and studies.) Second, if the king and rook are on their original squares, castling may or may not be allowed. Because of this ambiguity, it would be necessary to make separate evaluations for states in which castling is or is not possible.
The same ambiguity exists for the en passant capture, since the possibility of en passant depends on the opponent's previous move. However, practical applications of en passant occur frequently in pawn endgames, so tablebases account for the possibility of en passant for positions where both sides have at least one pawn.
Using a priori information
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
![Piece Piece](https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/d7/49/a8/d749a8bc2c72a6c2aa27e7fa7186cced.jpg)
An example of the KRP(a2)KBP(a3) endgame. White mates in 72 moves, starting with 1.Kh7! Other White moves draw.
According to the method described above, the tablebase must allow the possibility that a given piece might occupy any of the 64 squares. In some positions, it is possible to restrict the search space without affecting the result. This saves computational resources and enables searches which would otherwise be impossible.
An early analysis of this type was published in 1987, in the endgame KRP(a2)KBP(a3), where the Black bishop moves on the dark squares (see example position at right).[30] In this position, we can make the following a priori assumptions:
- If a piece is captured, we can look up the resulting position in the corresponding tablebase with five pieces. For example, if the Black pawn is captured, look up the newly created position in KRPKB.
- The White pawn stays on a2; capture moves are handled by the 1st rule.
- The Black pawn stays on a3; capture moves are handled by the 1st rule.[31]
The result of this simplification is that, instead of searching for 48 * 47 = 2,256 permutations for the pawns' locations, there is only one permutation. Reducing the search space by a factor of 2,256 facilitates a much quicker calculation.
Bleicher has designed a commercial program called 'Freezer,' which allows users to build new tablebases from existing Nalimov tablebases with a priori information. The program could produce a tablebase for positions with seven or more pieces with blocked pawns, even before tablebases for seven pieces became available.[32]
Applications
Correspondence chess
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
The position after 55.Qxb4; tablebases tell us White wins in 82 moves.
In correspondence chess, a player may consult a chess computer for assistance, provided that the etiquette of the competition allows this. A six-piece tablebase (KQQKQQ) was used to analyze the endgame that occurred in the correspondence game Kasparov versus The World.[33] Players have also used tablebases to analyze endgames from over-the-board play after the game is over.
Competitive players need to know that some tablebases ignore the fifty-move rule. According to that rule, if fifty moves have passed without a capture or a pawn move, either player may claim a draw. FIDE changed the rules several times, starting in 1974, to allow one hundred moves for endgames where fifty moves were insufficient to win. In 1988, FIDE allowed seventy-five moves for KBBKN, KNNKP, KQKBB, KQKNN, KRBKR, and KQPKQ with the pawn on the seventh rank, because tablebases had uncovered positions in these endgames requiring more than fifty moves to win. In 1992, FIDE canceled these exceptions and restored the fifty-move rule to its original standing.[21] Thus a tablebase may identify a position as won or lost, when it is in fact drawn by the fifty-move rule. In 2013, ICCF changed the rules for correspondence chess tournaments starting from 2014; a player may claim a win or draw based on six-man tablebases.[34] In this case the fifty-move rule is not applied, and the number of moves to mate is not taken into consideration.
Haworth has designed a tablebase that produces results consistent with the fifty-move rule. However most tablebases search for the theoretical limits of forced mate, even if it requires several hundred moves.
Computer chess
The knowledge contained in tablebases affords the computer a tremendous advantage in the endgame. Not only can computers play perfectly within an endgame, but they can simplify to a winning tablebase position from a more complicated endgame.[35] For the latter purpose, some programs use 'bitbases' which give the game-theoretical value of positions without the number of moves until conversion or mate â that is, they only reveal whether the position is won, lost or draw. Sometimes even this data is compressed and the bitbase reveals only whether a position is won or not, making no difference between a lost and a drawn game.[27] Shredderbases, for example, used by the Shredder program, are a type of bitbase[36] which fits all three, four and five piece bitbases in 157 MB. This is a mere fraction of the 7.05 GB that the Nalimov tablebases require.[37] Some computer chess experts have observed practical drawbacks to the use of tablebases.[38] In addition to ignoring the fifty-move rule, a computer in a difficult position might avoid the losing side of a tablebase ending even if the opponent cannot practically win without himself knowing the tablebase. The adverse effect could be a premature resignation, or an inferior line of play that loses with less resistance than a play without tablebase might offer.
Another drawback is that tablebases require a lot of memory to store the many thousands of positions. The Nalimov tablebases, which use advanced compression techniques, require 7.05 GB of hard disk space for all five-piece endings. The six-piece endings require approximately 1.2 TB.[39][40] The seven-piece Lomonosov tablebase requires 140 TB of storage space.[41] Some computers play better overall if their memory is devoted instead to the ordinary search and evaluation function. Modern engines analyze far enough ahead conventionally to handle the elementary endgames without needing tablebases (i.e. without suffering from the horizon effect). It is only in more complicated endgames that tablebases will have any significant effect on an engine's performance.
Syzygy tablebases were developed by Ronald de Man, released in April 2013, in a form optimized for use by a chess program during search. This variety consists of two tables per endgame: a smaller WDL table (win-draw-loss) which contains knowledge of the 50-move rule, and a larger DTZ table (distance to zero ply, i.e. pawn move or capture). The WDL tables were designed to be small enough to fit on a solid-state drive for quick access during search, whereas the DTZ form is for use at the root position to choose the game-theoretically quickest distance to resetting the 50-move rule while retaining a winning position, instead of performing a search. Syzygy tablebases are available for all 6-piece endings, and are now supported by many top engines, including Komodo, Deep Fritz, Houdini, and Stockfish.[42] Since August 2018, all[43] 7-piece Syzygy tables are also available.[44]
Current status of the tablebases is summarized in the following table[45]:
Number of pieces | Number of positions | Database name | size |
---|---|---|---|
2 | 462 | Syzygy | (included in the 5-piece tablebase) |
3 | 368,079 | Syzygy | (included in the 5-piece tablebase) |
4 | 125,246,598 | Syzygy | (included in the 5-piece tablebase) |
5 | 25,912,594,054 | Syzygy | 939 MB |
6 | 3,787,154,440,416 | Syzygy | 150.2 GB |
7 | 423,836,835,667,331 | Syzygy | 17 TB |
7 | 423,836,835,667,331 | Lomonosov | 140 TB |
8 | 38,176,306,877,748,245 | n/a | 1 PB |
![Tablebase Tablebase](/uploads/1/2/4/8/124836272/978791713.png)
Research on creating an eight-piece tablebase are ongoing. It is assumed that a 1000-move mate in one of the 8-man endgames may be found, although this is unlikely to happen before 2020.[46] During an interview at Google in 2010 Garry Kasparov said that 'maybe' the limit will be 8 pieces. Because the start position of the chess is the ultimate endgame of 32 pieces, he claimed that there is no chance that chess can be solved by the computers.[47]
Endgame theory
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
A mate-in-262 position (White to move). White wins.
In contexts where the fifty-move rule may be ignored, tablebases have answered longstanding questions about whether certain combinations of material are wins or draws. The following interesting results have emerged:
- KBBKN â Bernhard Horwitz and Josef Kling (1851) proposed that Black can draw by entering a defensive fortress, but tablebases demonstrated a general win, with maximum DTC = 66 or 67 and maximum DTM = 78.[48] (Also see pawnless chess endgame.)
- KNNKP â Maximum DTC = DTM = 115 moves.
- KNNNNKQ â The knights win in 62.5 percent of positions, with maximum DTM = 85 moves.[49][50]
- KQRKQR â Despite the equality of material, the player to move wins in 67.74% of positions.[51] The maximum DTC is 92, and the maximum DTM is 117. In both this endgame and KQQKQQ, the first player to check usually wins.[52]
- KRNKNN and KRBKNN â Friedrich Amelung had analyzed these two endgames in the 1900s.[53] KRNKNN and KRBKNN are won for the strongest side in 78% and 95% of the cases, respectively.[26][54] Stiller's DTC tablebase revealed several lengthy wins in these endgames. The longest win in KRBKNN has a DTC of 223 and a DTM of 238 moves (not shown). Even more amazing is the position at right, where White wins starting with 1. Ke6! Stiller reported the DTC as 243 moves, and the DTM was later found to be 262 moves.[55]
For some years, a 'mate-in-200' position (first diagram below) held the record for the longest computer-generated forced mate. (Otto Blathy had composed a 'mate in 292 moves' problem in 1889, albeit from an illegal starting position.[56]) In May 2006, Bourzutschky and Konoval discovered a KQNKRBN position with an astonishing DTC of 517 moves.[57] This was more than twice as long as Stiller's maximum, and almost 200 moves beyond the previous record of a 330 DTC for a position of KQBNKQB_1001. Bourzutschky wrote, 'This was a big surprise for us and is a great tribute to the complexity of chess.'[58][59] Later, when the Lomonosov 7-piece tablebase was being completed a position was found with a DTM of 546 (third diagram below).[60][61]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
A mate-in-200 position (White to move). White pawn's first move is at move 119.
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
A mate-in-154 position (Black to move). Black wins.
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
A mate-in-546 position (White to move).[61] Position was found in the Lomonosov 7-piece tablebase. (In this example an 8th piece is removed with a trivial first move capture.)
Many positions are winnable although at first sight they appear to be non-winnable. For example, the position in the middle diagram is a win for Black in 154 moves (the white pawn is captured at around 80 moves).[62]
In August 2006, Bourzutschky released preliminary results from his analysis of the following seven-piece endgames: KQQPKQQ, KRRPKRR, and KBBPKNN.[28]
Endgame studies
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play and win. The composer intended 1. Ne3 Rxh2 2. 0-0-0#! as the main line of the solution, but a tablebase revealed that 1. h4 wins without castling.
Since many composed endgame studies deal with positions that exist in tablebases, their soundness can be checked using the tablebases. Some studies have been proved unsound by the tablebases. That can be either because the composer's solution does not work, or else because there is an equally effective alternative that the composer did not consider. Another way tablebases cook studies is a change in the evaluation of an endgame. For instance, the endgame with a queen and bishop versus two rooks was thought to be a draw, but tablebases proved it to be a win for the queen and bishop, so almost all studies based on this endgame are unsound.[63]
For example, Erik Pogosyants composed the study at right, with White to play and win. His intended main line was 1. Ne3 Rxh2 2. 0-0-0#! A tablebase discovered that 1. h4 also wins for White in 33 moves, even though Black can capture the pawn (which is not the best move â in case of capturing the pawn black loses in 21 moves, while Kh1-g2 loses in 32 moves). Incidentally, the tablebase does not recognize the composer's solution because it includes castling.[64]
While tablebases have cooked some studies, they have assisted in the creation of other studies. Composers can search tablebases for interesting positions, such as zugzwang, using a method called data mining. For all three- to five-piece endgames and pawnless six-piece endgames, a complete list of mutual zugzwangs has been tabulated and published.[65][66][67]
There has been some controversy whether to allow endgame studies composed with tablebase assistance into composing tournaments. In 2003, the endgame composer and expert John Roycroft summarized the debate:
[N]ot only do opinions diverge widely, but they are frequently adhered to strongly, even vehemently: at one extreme is the view that since we can never be certain that a computer has been used it is pointless to attempt a distinction, so we should simply evaluate a 'study' on its content, without reference to its origins; at the other extreme is the view that using a 'mouse' to lift an interesting position from a ready-made computer-generated list is in no sense composing, so we should outlaw every such position.[68]
Roycroft himself agrees with the latter approach. He continues, 'One thing alone is clear to us: the distinction between classical composing and computer composing should be preserved for as long as possible: if there is a name associated with a study diagram that name is a claim of authorship.'[68]
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
8 | 8 | ||||||
7 | 7 | ||||||
6 | 6 | ||||||
5 | 5 | ||||||
4 | 4 | ||||||
3 | 3 | ||||||
2 | 2 | ||||||
1 | 1 | ||||||
a | b | c | d | e | f | g | h |
White to play and draw
Mark Dvoretsky, an International Master, chess trainer, and author, took a more permissive stance. He was commenting in 2006 on a study by Harold van der Heijden, published in 2001, which reached the position at right after three introductory moves. The drawing move for White is 4. Kb4!! (and not 4. Kb5), based on a mutual zugzwang that may occur three moves later.
Dvoretsky comments:
Here, we should touch on one delicate question. I am sure that this unique endgame position was discovered with the help of Thompsonâs famous computer database. Is this a 'flaw,' diminishing the composer's achievement?
Yes, the computer database is an instrument, available to anyone nowadays. Out of it, no doubt, we could probably extract yet more unique positions â there are some chess composers who do so regularly. The standard for evaluation here should be the result achieved. Thus: miracles, based upon complex computer analysis rather than on their content of sharp ideas, are probably of interest only to certain aesthetes.[69]
'Play chess with God'
On the Bell Labs website, Ken Thompson once maintained a link to some of his tablebase data. The headline read, 'Play chess with God.'[70]
Regarding Stiller's long wins, Tim Krabbé struck a similar note:
A grandmaster wouldn't be better at these endgames than someone who had learned chess yesterday. It's a sort of chess that has nothing to do with chess, a chess that we could never have imagined without computers. The Stiller moves are awesome, almost scary, because you know they are the truth, God's Algorithm â it's like being revealed the Meaning of Life, but you don't understand one word.[26]
Nomenclature
Originally, an endgame tablebase was called an 'endgame data base' or 'endgame database'. This name appeared in both EG and the ICCA Journal starting in the 1970s, and is sometimes used today. According to Haworth, the ICCA Journal first used the word 'tablebase' in connection with chess endgames in 1995.[71] According to that source, a tablebase contains a complete set of information, but a database might lack some information.
Haworth prefers the term 'Endgame Table', and has used it in the articles he has authored.[72] Roycroft has used the term 'oracle database' throughout his magazine, EG.[73] Nonetheless, the mainstream chess community has adopted 'endgame tablebase' as the most common name.
Books
John Nunn has written three books based on detailed analysis of endgame tablebases:
- Nunn, John (1995). 'Minor-Piece'. Batsford. ISBN 0-8050-4228-8.
- Nunn, John (1999). 'Rook' (2nd ed.). Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-901983-18-8.
- Nunn, John (2002). 'Pawnless Endings' (2nd ed.). Gambit Publications. ISBN 978-1-901983-65-4.
See also
- EG magazine
Notes
- ^EGTBs Chessprogramming website
- ^'Lomonosov Endgame Tablebases'. ChessOK.
- ^Website of KingsRow about the creation of a tablebases for 8x8 and 10x10 checkers
- ^gothicchess.com; examples of long endings for Gothic chess
- ^Ralpf Gasser (1996). 'Solving nine men's morris'(PDF).
- ^Allis, Louis Victor (1994). 'Searching for Solutions in Games and Artificial Intelligence'(PDF). Department of Computer Science, University of Limburg: 8. ISBN 90-900748-8-0. Retrieved 3 May 2009.
- ^Levy & Newborn, pp. 25-38
- ^Levy & Newborn, pp. 129-30
- ^Stiller, p. 84
- ^R. E. Bellman (February 1965). 'On the application of dynamic programming to the determination of optimal play in chess and checkers'. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 53 (2): 244â246. doi:10.1073/pnas.53.2.244. PMID16591252.
- ^T. Ströhlein (1970). Untersuchungen über kombinatorische Spiele [Translation: Investigations on Combinatorial Games] Ph.D. Thesis. Technical University of Munich.
- ^See also 'The 'End-Papers''(PDF). EG (52): 25. July 1978. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
Niblett and Kopec described, and later demonstrated, the optimal 0103 data base. (This work was in fact first done and published by Thomas Strohlein, Munich, in 1970, but only a single analytical line is contained in his doctoral thesis.)
- ^T. Niblett; A. J. Roycroft (June 1979). 'How the GBR Class 0103 Data Base was Created'(PDF). EG (56): 145â46. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^Levy & Newborn, p. 144
-
^See also:
- K. Thompson (1986). 'Retrograde analysis of certain endgames'. ICCA Journal.
- K. Thompson (May 1986). 'The Programs that Generate Endgame Data Bases'(PDF). EG (83): 2. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^Stiller, pp. 68-113
- ^See also: L. B. Stiller (1991). 'Some Results from a Massively Parallel Retrograde Analysis'. ICCA Journal.
- ^Convekta Ltd. 'Lomonosov Endgame Tablebases'.
- ^J. Hurd; G. McC. Haworth. 'Chess Endgame Data Assurance'(PDF). Retrieved 13 December 2008.
- ^Gary M. Danelishen (25 February 2008). The Final Theory of Chess. Open Wiki of Chess Openings. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-9815677-0-9. Retrieved 10 August 2011.
- ^ abG. McC. Haworth (March 2000). 'Strategies for Constrained Optimisation'(PDF). ICGA Journal. Archived from the original(PDF) on 29 September 2007. Retrieved 20 June 2009.
- ^'7-piece Syzygy tablebases are complete'. Lichess. Retrieved 27 August 2018.
- ^Levy & Newborn, pp. 140-43
- ^See also Stiller 1995:93-98.
- ^Muller, H.G. 'EGTB generator'. Retrieved 3 May 2009.
Pawns would break the front-back and diagonal symmetries, because they care about direction in their moves.
- ^ abcTim Krabbé. 'Stiller's Monsters or Perfection in Chess'. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^ abAaron Tay. 'A guide to Endgames Tablebase'. Retrieved 2 May 2009.
- ^ abM. Bourzutschky (27 August 2006). '7-man endgames with pawns'. CCRL Discussion Board. Retrieved 14 June 2010.
- ^Stiller, pp. 99-100
- ^H. J. Herik; I. S. Herschberg; N. Naka (1987). 'A Six-Men-Endgame Database: KRP(a2)KbBP(a3)'. ICGA Journal. 10 (4): 163â180.
- ^E. Bleicher (26 August 2004). 'Building Chess Endgame Databases for Positions with many Pieces using A-priori Information'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 27 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^K. Müller (May 2005). 'Freeze!'(PDF). Endgame Corner. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^E. V. Nalimov; C. Wirth; G. McC. Haworth (1999). 'KQQKQQ and the KasparovâWorld Game'. ICGA Journal. 22 (4): 195â212.
- ^The introduction of table base claims by Eric Ruch - ICCF President
- ^Steven A. Lopez (11 November 2006). 'Shredderbases'. ChessBase.com. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^'Profile of Eiko Bleicher, co-developer of shredderbase'. Retrieved 6 April 2013.
- ^'Shredder Computer Chess Download - Shredderbases'. Retrieved 9 August 2008.
- ^A. Tay (30 June 2002). 'Can use of endgame tablebases weaken play?'. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^David Kirkby (12 March 2007). 'Endgame Tablebases'. ChessDB Tutorial. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^Stefan Meyer-Kahlen. 'Shredder Computer Chess Download - Endgame Database Info'. Retrieved 17 August 2008.
- ^Lomonosov Endgame Tablebases, http://chessok.com/?page_id=27966, 10 June 2017
- ^'Syzygy Bases'. Chess Programming Wiki. Retrieved 24 March 2015.
- ^'7-piece Syzygy tablebases are complete'.
- ^'7-man Syzygy download'.
- ^'Number of Unique Legal Positions in chess endgames'.
- ^'8 Longest 7-Man Checkmates'.
- ^'Garry Kasparov, Talks at Google'.
- ^A. J. Roycroft (1984). 'Two Bishops Against Knight'(PDF). EG (75): 249. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^Tim Krabbé (12 April 2005). '282. First 7-piece endgame database'. Open Chess Diary. Retrieved 25 March 2007.
- ^Emil Vlasák (21 July 2005). 'News in 7 piece EGTB'. Retrieved 25 March 2007.
- ^G. McC. Haworth (August 2001). 'Discarding Like Pieces'(PDF). Archived from the original(PDF) on 29 September 2007. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^Nunn, p. 379, 384
- ^Stiller, p. 81
- ^Tim Krabbé (8 April 2000). '60. Play chess with God'. Open Chess Diary. Retrieved 13 May 2007.
- ^Stiller, pp. 102-8
- ^'Blathy'. 21 June 2003. Archived from the original on 25 October 2009. Retrieved 2007-05-04.
- ^Pal Benko, Endgame Lab: The Magnificent Seven, Chess Life, April 2013, p. 44
- ^Tim Krabbé (31 March 2006). '311. White plays and wins in 330 moves'. Open Chess Diary. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^Tim Krabbé (26 May 2006). '316. A 517-move win'. Open Chess Diary. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^RybkaForum.net
- ^ ab'Who wins from this puzzle?' A chess position with a mate-in-546 answer presented as a puzzle, and discussion.
- ^Six-Man Endgame Server
- ^Nunn, pp. 367-68
- ^Tim Krabbé (15 September 2006). '324. A cooked, correct study'. Open chess diary. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^G. McC. Haworth (2001). J.W.H.M. Uiterwijk (ed.). '3â5 Man Mutual Zugzwangs in Chess'. Proceedings of the CMG 6th Computer Olympiad Computer-Games Workshop. TR CS 01-04.
- ^G. McC. Haworth (2001). 'Ken Thompson's 6-man Tables'. ICGA Journal.
- ^G. McC. Haworth; P. Karrer; J. A. Tamplin; C. Wirth (2001). '3â5 Man Chess: Maximals and Mzugs'. ICGA Journal. 24 (4): 225â30.
- ^ abA. J. Roycroft (July 2003). 'Editorial'(PDF). EG (149): 51. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^M. Dvoretsky (July 2006). 'Study Composing Tourney'(PDF). The Instructor. ChessCafe.com. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
- ^Ken Thompson (21 August 2002). 'Play chess with God'. Archived from the original on 24 January 2007. Retrieved 25 March 2007.
- ^Guy Haworth (1995). 'Tablebases and Tables'(PDF). EG (137): 151. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
- ^'Publications for Mr Guy Haworth'. Information Systems at Reading. The University of Reading. Retrieved 20 June 2009.
- ^For example, in 'Proposal For The Guidance Of Tourney Organisers, Composers And Judges: 0. Definitions'(PDF). EG (135): 9. Retrieved 1 April 2007.
odb â otherwise known as total information database or tablebase.
References
- Levy, David; Newborn, Monty (1991). 'How Computers Play Chess'. Computer Science Press. ISBN 0-7167-8121-2.
- Nunn, John (2002). 'Secrets of Pawnless Endings' (second ed.). Gambit Publications. ISBN 1-901983-65-X.
- Stiller, Lewis Benjamin (1995). 'Exploiting symmetry on parallel architectures'(PDF). Ph.D. Thesis, Johns Hopkins University. Archived from the original(PDF) on 30 September 2007. Retrieved 4 May 2007.
External links
- Downloading tablebases
- 3-4-5 pieces on Robert Hyatt's FTP site
- Querying tablebases on the web
- Web query server for Nalimov tablebases by Eiko Bleicher (up to six pieces)
- Web query server for Nalimov tablebases at ChessOK (up to six pieces)
- Web query server for Nalimov tablebases by Lokasoft (up to six pieces)
- Web query server for Syzygy tablebases by Niklas Fiekas (up to seven pieces)
- Maximal positions, i.e. longest DTM positions for endgames with up to five pieces and some with six pieces, compiled by Kirill Kryukov
Alexey Alexeyevich Troitsky, or Alexei, Troitzky, or Troitzki (Russian: ÐлекÑеÌй ÐлекÑеÌÐµÐ²Ð¸Ñ Ð¢ÑоÌиÑкий) (March 14, 1866âAugust 1942) is considered to have been one of the greatest composers of chess endgame studies. He is widely regarded as the founder of the modern art of composing chess studies (Seirawan 2003:91). Troitsky died of starvation during World War II at the siege of Leningrad, where his notes were destroyed.
One of his most famous works involves analyzing the endgame with two knights versus a pawn, see Troitsky line. John Nunn analyzed this endgame with an endgame tablebase and stated that 'the analysis of Troitsky ... is astonishingly accurate' (Nunn 1995:265).
Belle (chess machine)
Belle was a chess computer developed by Joe Condon (hardware) and Ken Thompson (software) at Bell Labs. In 1983, it was the first machine to achieve master-level play, with a USCF rating of 2250. It won the ACM North American Computer Chess Championship five times and the 1980 World Computer Chess Championship. It was the first system to win using specialized chess hardware.
In its final incarnation, Belle used an LSI-11 general purpose computer to coordinate its chess hardware. There were three custom boards for move generation, four custom boards for position evaluation, and a microcode implementation of alpha-beta pruning. The computer also had one megabyte of commercial memory for storing transposition tables.
At the end of its career, Belle was donated to the Smithsonian Institution. The overall architecture of Belle was used for the initial designs of ChipTest, the progenitor of IBM Deep Blue.
Brute-force search
In computer science, brute-force search or exhaustive search, also known as generate and test, is a very general problem-solving technique and algorithmic paradigm that consists of systematically enumerating all possible candidates for the solution and checking whether each candidate satisfies the problem's statement.
A brute-force algorithm to find the divisors of a natural number n would enumerate all integers from 1 to n, and check whether each of them divides n without remainder. A brute-force approach for the eight queens puzzle would examine all possible arrangements of 8 pieces on the 64-square chessboard, and, for each arrangement, check whether each (queen) piece can attack any other.
While a brute-force search is simple to implement, and will always find a solution if it exists, its cost is proportional to the number of candidate solutions â which in many practical problems tends to grow very quickly as the size of the problem increases (combinatorial explosion). Therefore, brute-force search is typically used when the problem size is limited, or when there are problem-specific heuristics that can be used to reduce the set of candidate solutions to a manageable size. The method is also used when the simplicity of implementation is more important than speed.
This is the case, for example, in critical applications where any errors in the algorithm would have very serious consequences; or when using a computer to prove a mathematical theorem. Brute-force search is also useful as a baseline method when benchmarking other algorithms or metaheuristics. Indeed, brute-force search can be viewed as the simplest metaheuristic. Brute force search should not be confused with backtracking, where large sets of solutions can be discarded without being explicitly enumerated (as in the textbook computer solution to the eight queens problem above). The brute-force method for finding an item in a table â namely, check all entries of the latter, sequentially â is called linear search.
Chess engine
In computer chess, a chess engine is a computer program that analyzes chess or chess variant positions, and generates a move or list of moves that it regards as strongest. A chess engine is usually a back end with a command-line interface with no graphics nor windowing. Engines are usually used with a front end, a windowed graphical user interface such as Chessbase or WinBoard that the user can interact with via a keyboard, mouse or touchscreen. This allows the user to play against multiple engines without learning a new user interface for each, and allows different engines to play against each other. Over the last years, there are chess engines available for mobile phones and tablets, which makes their usage easier. The list includes chess engines like Stockfish, Komodo, Texel, Bagatur and many others.
Chess opening book (computers)
Opening book is often used to describe the database of chess openings given to computer chess programs (and related games, such as computer shogi). Such programs are quite significantly enhanced through the provision of an electronic version of an opening book. This eliminates the need for the program to calculate the best lines during approximately the first ten moves of the game, where the positions are extremely open-ended and thus computationally expensive to evaluate. As a result it places the computer in a stronger position using considerably less resources than if it had to calculate the moves itself.
On some occasions, a player might consider playing a strange move outside the opening book to force a computer to think for itself. While this may introduce a strategic weakness, a lot of the time, playing out of the book early may end up compromising one's own pawn structure, losing a tempo or allow the opponent to develop more effectively, as chess engines have become significantly more powerful over time to think more deeply or accurately than in the past.
Combinatorial explosion
In mathematics, a combinatorial explosion is the rapid growth of the complexity of a problem due to how the combinatorics of the problem is affected by the input, constraints, and bounds of the problem. Combinatorial explosion is sometimes used to justify the intractability of certain problems. Examples of such problems include certain mathematical functions, the analysis of some puzzles and games, and some pathological examples which can be modelled as the Ackermann function.
Crafty
Crafty is a chess program written by UAB professor Dr. Robert Hyatt, with continual development and assistance from Michael Byrne, Tracy Riegle, and Peter Skinner. It is directly derived from Cray Blitz, winner of the 1983 and 1986 World Computer Chess Championships. Tord Romstad, the author of Stockfish, described Crafty as 'arguably the most important and influential chess program ever'.Crafty finished in second place in the 2010 Fifth Annual ACCA Americas' Computer Chess Championships. Crafty lost only one game to the first place winner Thinker.
Crafty also finished in second place in the 2010 World Computer Rapid Chess Championships. Crafty won seven out of nine games, finishing just behind the first place winner Rybka by only ½ point.
In the World Computer Chess Championships 2004, running on slightly faster hardware than all other programs, Crafty took fourth place with the same number of points as the third-place finisher, Fritz 8. On the November 2007 SSDF ratings list, Crafty was 34th with an estimated Elo rating of 2608.Crafty uses the Chess Engine Communication Protocol and can run under the popular chess interfaces XBoard and Winboard
Crafty is written in ANSI C with assembly language routines available on some CPUs, and is very portable. The source code is available, but the software is for 'personal use' only and redistribution is only allowed under certain conditions.
Crafty pioneered the use of rotated bitboard data structures to represent the chess board, and was one of the first chess programs to support multiple processors. It also includes negascout search, the killer move heuristic, static exchange evaluation, quiescence search, alpha-beta pruning, a transposition table, a refutation table, an evaluation cache, selective extensions, recursive null-move search, and many other features (cf manual). Special editions of the program include enhanced features such as an opening book, positional learning, and an endgame tablebase.
Crafty was one of the programs included in the SPEC CPU2000 benchmark test. It is also included as an additional engine in Fritz.
Cross-check
In chess, a cross-check is a tactic in which a check is played in response to a check, especially when the original check is blocked by a piece that itself either delivers check or reveals a discovered check from another piece. Sometimes the term is extended to cover cases in which the king moves out of check and reveals a discovered check from another piece (this is also known as a royal check); it does not generally apply to cases where the original checking piece is captured, but it does apply to cases where the check is actually a checkmate (since there's no term 'cross-checkmate').
The cross-check is an essential tactic in winning some endgames such as those with two queens versus one, or a queen and pawn versus a queen. In these cases, the defense usually tries for a perpetual check and sometimes the stronger side can stop it only by a cross-check.
EGT
EGT may refer to
Emergent Game Technologies, developer of the game software Gamebryo
Evanjelické Gymnázium Tisovec, see Lutheran Gymnasium Tisovec, a school in Slovakia
Evolutionary game theory, a branch of game theory
Endgame tablebase, a database of chess endgame positions
Evolutionary Governance Theory, a framework combining social, economic and political sciences
Exhaust gas temperature, a term in combustion technology
Wellington Municipal Airport, which has the IATA airport code EGT
Egton railway station, which has the UK national rail code EGT
Epic Gamer Tournament, a Finnish Super Smash Bros. Ultimate tournament held in Kotka
IPPOLIT
IPPOLIT is an open-source chess program released by authors using pseudonyms, Yakov Petrovich Golyadkin, Igor Igorovich Igoronov, Roberto Pescatore, Yusuf Ralf Weisskopf, Ivan Skavinsky Skavar, and Decembrists.
The program is a console application that communicates with a chess Graphical User Interface (GUI) via standard Universal Chess Interface protocol. IPPOLIT is a bitboard chess engine optimized for 64-bit architecture with native support for both 32-bit/64-bit Linux and Windows operating systems. With about 3100 ELO it is listed in TOP 50 strongest chess programs.
Ken Thompson
Kenneth Lane Thompson (born February 4, 1943) is an American pioneer of computer science. Having worked at Bell Labs for most of his career, Thompson designed and implemented the original Unix operating system. He also invented the B programming language, the direct predecessor to the C programming language, and was one of the creators and early developers of the Plan 9 operating system. Since 2006, Thompson has worked at Google, where he co-invented the Go programming language.
Other notable contributions included his work on regular expressions and early computer text editors QED and ed, the definition of the UTF-8 encoding, his work on computer chess that included creation of endgame tablebases and the chess machine Belle.
KingsRow
KingsRow is a strong checkers and draughts engine. It was released by Ed Gilbert in 2000.
The checkers engine can be used with the CheckerBoard GUI. The engine is available as freeware.
Nemesis (draughts player)
Nemesis is an English draughts program by Murray Cash. Today Nemesis is no longer commercially available; development stopped years ago.
Nemesis was the strongest program in 2002, when it won the British computer championship against Wyllie, a 16-game match ending +5 =11 in favor of Nemesis and the Computer Checkers World Championship played out in Las Vegas.
The World Championship was a tournament featuring Nemesis, Cake and KingsRow. Each program played each of the others 24 times. The final scores were:
Nemesis 24.5 points (+1 =47 -0, 1 win against Cake)
KingsRow 24 points (+1 =46 -1, 1 win and 1 loss against Cake)
Cake 23.5 Points (+1 =45 -2, 1 win against KingsRow, 1 loss each against Nemesis and Kingsrow)Nemesis used its own 8-piece endgame tablebase.
Philidor position
The Philidor position (or Philidor's position) usually refers to an important chess endgame which illustrates a drawing technique when the defender has a king and rook versus a king, rook, and a pawn. It is also known as the third rank defense, because of the importance of the rook on the third rank cutting off the opposing king. It was analyzed by François-André Danican Philidor in 1777. (Also see rook and pawn versus rook endgame.) Many rook and pawn versus rook endgames reach either the Philidor position or the Lucena position. If played accurately the defending side tries to reach the Philidor position; the other side tries to reach the winning Lucena position. Jesús de la Villa said '[The Philidor position] is perhaps the most important position in endgame theory' (de la Villa 2008:125).
Philidor analyzed many positions, some of which have his name associated with them (see the subsequent sections).
Queen and pawn versus queen endgame
The queen and pawn versus queen endgame is a chess endgame in which both sides have a queen and one side has a pawn, which they are trying to promote. It is very complicated and difficult to play. Cross-checks are often used as a device to win the game by forcing the exchange of queens. It is almost always a draw if the defending king is in front of the pawn (Nunn 2007:148).
Karsten Müller and Frank Lamprecht say that this endgame occurs quite frequently but Mark Dvoretsky says that it occurs quite seldom (Müller & Lamprecht 2001:316), (Dvoretsky 2006:250). This is the second most common 'piece and pawn versus piece' endgame, next to the rook and pawn versus rook endgame (Nunn 2007:148).
Solved game
A solved game is a game whose outcome (win, lose or draw) can be correctly predicted from any position, assuming that both players play perfectly.
This concept is usually applied to abstract strategy games, and especially to games with full information and no element of chance;
solving such a game may use combinatorial game theory and/or computer assistance.
Solving chess
Solving chess means finding an optimal strategy for playing chess, i.e. one by which one of the players (White or Black) can always force a victory, or both can force a draw (see Solved game). It also means more generally solving chess-like games (i.e. combinatorial games of perfect information), such as infinite chess. According to Zermelo's theorem, a hypothetically determinable optimal strategy does exist for chess and chess-like games.
In a weaker sense, solving chess may refer to proving which one of the three possible outcomes (White wins; Black wins; draw) is the result of two perfect players, without necessarily revealing the optimal strategy itself (see indirect proof).No complete solution for chess in either of the two senses is known, nor is it expected that chess will be solved in the near future. There is disagreement on whether the current exponential growth of computing power will continue long enough to someday allow for solving it by 'brute force', i.e. by checking all possibilities.
Stockfish (chess)
Stockfish is a free and open-source UCI chess engine, available for various desktop and mobile platforms. It is developed by Marco Costalba, Joona Kiiski, Gary Linscott and Tord Romstad, with many contributions from a community of open-source developers.Stockfish is consistently ranked first or near the top of most chess-engine rating lists and is the strongest open-source chess engine in the world. It won the unofficial world computer chess championships in season 6 (2014), season 9 (2016), season 11 (2018), season 12 (2018), season 13 (2018) and season 14 (2019). It finished runner-up in season 5 (2013), season 7 (2014) and season 8 (2015). As of January 2019, it is the strongest publicly available chess engine in the world, a fact acknowledged by rival Komodo developer Larry Kaufman when he said that one must beat Stockfish 10 to claim to be the world's best engine.Stockfish is derived from Glaurung, an open-source engine by Romstad released in 2004.
Xiexiemaster
Xiexiemaster or simply Xiexie is a strong xiangqi (Chinese chess) program created by Pascal Tang in 1998. At the beginning, as the program was located in France, it was very hard to find Chinese chess high class players. Finally, some European top players accepted to challenge the software (Hua Say Ty, Woo Wei Cheung, Dang Thanh Trung). The author was so grateful that he called the program 'Xiexie' which comes from the same Chinese word which means 'Thank you'.
'Eugenio Castillo has joined the Xiexie development team in 1999. Before 2001, there were a few Chinese chess programs and they were fairly mediocre. The program Xiexie became famous by beating the Chinese delegation of Chinese chess international Masters and Grand Masters in 2001 (Lu Qin, Jin Hai Ying ...) who came for a show in Paris. This victory marked the beginning of the recognition of Chinese chess software by top players.
Since then, the evaluation function was further improved by Pascal Tang. From 2005, Jih-tung Pai added support of a DTC (Distance To Conversion) Endgame Tablebase. Thanks to Jih-tung Pai, Xiexie had the largest Chinese chess endgame tablebase of the World (350 GB).
Attacking pieces | Defending pieces | Longest win |
---|---|---|
476 | ||
380 | ||
400 | ||
186 | ||
143 | ||
140 | ||
549 | ||
260 | ||
201 | ||
143 | ||
211 | ||
211 | ||
298 | ||
261 | ||
293 | ||
217 | ||
224 | ||
259 | ||
228 | ||
297 | ||
176 | ||
182 | ||
184 | ||
296 | ||
269 | ||
191 | ||
104 | ||
79 | ||
92 | ||
189 | ||
77 | ||
88 | ||
70 | ||
98 | ||
262 | ||
246 | ||
246 | ||
238 | ||
105 | ||
149 | ||
140 | ||
232 | ||
86 | ||
102 | ||
210 | ||
176 | ||
304 | ||
152 | ||
262 | ||
212 | ||
84 | ||
134 | ||
112 | ||
117 | ||
122 | ||
182 | ||
120 | ||
195 | ||
229 | ||
150 | ||
192 | ||
176 | ||
197 | ||
545 | ||
169 | ||
106 | ||
115 | ||
154 | ||
141 | ||
94 | ||
141 | ||
107 | ||
247 | ||
213 | ||
184 | ||
239 | ||
192 | ||
297 |
Outline |
|
||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Equipment |
|
||||||||
Rules |
|
||||||||
Terms |
|
||||||||
Tactics |
|
||||||||
Strategy |
|
||||||||
Openings |
|
||||||||
Endgames |
|
||||||||
Tournaments |
|
||||||||
Related |
|
This page is based on a Wikipedia article written by authors (here).
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.