If there is anything about chess computers that has taught the player
today it is how strong the King itself really is in chess. Computer
chess has shown humans today how to really play with the King. That's
why chess will never be solved because even though the King is the
target it is the King himself on the chessboard that makes it
impossible to for the computer. Give a computer program a piece with
8 squares to choose from and it is like a dream come true for the
machine. When computers play computers it is amazing how the King is
used. Maybe that's why humans lose to the computer. We don't realize
how strong and important the King is as a complete piece. Maybe that
is why computers are still weak in the endgame. To the computer a
King is not a piece that should always be tucked away into safety.
The one game with Deep Fritz and Kramnik where Kramnik lost testify's
to that. Just my opinion.

EZoto

EZoto wrote:
If there is anything about chess computers that has taught the player
today it is how strong the King itself really is in chess. Computer
chess has shown humans today how to really play with the King. That's
why chess will never be solved because even though the King is the
target it is the King himself on the chessboard that makes it
impossible to for the computer.

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely, if chess is ever solved, it will be a
computer that does it. And you say that computers understand kings better
than humans but then claim that the computer can't solve chess because
kings are hard?


Dave.

--
David Richerby Natural Monk (TM): it's like a man of
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ God but it's completely natural!

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely, if chess is ever solved, it will be a
computer that does it. And you say that computers understand kings better
than humans but then claim that the computer can't solve chess because
kings are hard?


Dave.

No. I believe the King itself is the reason why computers won't solve
chess. The computer can be programmed to go after the King. But a
computer knows how to use the King itself. The King is the variable
that the computers can't solve because the King in itself is a piece
that has unlimited options. I don't know if I'm explaining it right.

EZoto

In article m,
EZoto wrote:

No. I believe the King itself is the reason why computers won't solve
chess. The computer can be programmed to go after the King. But a
computer knows how to use the King itself. The King is the variable
that the computers can't solve because the King in itself is a piece
that has unlimited options. I don't know if I'm explaining it right.


Interesting idea, but I think it's rubbish. And the fact that computers
make such good use of the king is proof of that.

--Harold Buck


"I used to rock and roll all night,
and party every day.
Then it was every other day. . . ."
-Homer J. Simpson

EZoto wrote:
David Richerby wrote:
I'm not sure what you mean. Surely, if chess is ever solved, it will
be a computer that does it. And you say that computers understand
kings better than humans but then claim that the computer can't solve
chess because kings are hard?

No. I believe the King itself is the reason why computers won't solve
chess. The computer can be programmed to go after the King. But a
computer knows how to use the King itself. The King is the variable
that the computers can't solve because the King in itself is a piece
that has unlimited options. I don't know if I'm explaining it right.

You're not explaining it in a way that I can understand, I'm afraid.

Chess is a finite game. There are finitely many pieces, there are a
finite number of options for each move and there is a finite bound on the
length of a game before one player can claim a draw under the 50-move
rule. So the king does not have unlimited options.


Dave.

--
David Richerby Perforated Hungry Windows (TM): it's
www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~davidr/ like a graphical user interface but
it'll eat you and it's full of holes!

"EZoto" wrote in message
s.com...

If there is anything about chess computers that has taught the player
today it is how strong the King itself really is in chess. Computer
chess has shown humans today how to really play with the King. That's
why chess will never be solved because even though the King is the
target it is the King himself on the chessboard that makes it
impossible to for the computer. Give a computer program a piece with
8 squares to choose from and it is like a dream come true for the
machine. When computers play computers it is amazing how the King is
used. Maybe that's why humans lose to the computer. We don't realize
how strong and important the King is as a complete piece. Maybe that
is why computers are still weak in the endgame. To the computer a
King is not a piece that should always be tucked away into safety.
The one game with Deep Fritz and Kramnik where Kramnik lost testify's
to that. Just my opinion.

EZoto

EZ,
The title of your post (along the the follow-up phrase, "Use it!") is
attributed to Reuben Fine, writing in the 1940s. Steinitz wrote, "My King
likes to go for a walk," describing his take on the fighting king. Among
the first lessons a new player must learn are to avoid giving up pieces of
greater value for those of lesser value, and seeing to the safety of the
king. Then to get really good, the player must learn when the numerous
apparent exceptions apply.

Bob

"EZoto" wrote in message
s.com...

I'm not sure what you mean. Surely, if chess is ever solved, it will be
a
computer that does it. And you say that computers understand kings
better
than humans but then claim that the computer can't solve chess because
kings are hard?


Dave.

No. I believe the King itself is the reason why computers won't solve
chess. The computer can be programmed to go after the King. But a
computer knows how to use the King itself. The King is the variable
that the computers can't solve because the King in itself is a piece
that has unlimited options. I don't know if I'm explaining it right.

EZoto

EZ,
Can't you say the same about the Q?

Certainly computers will make better use of the K than most human players.
Humans come to the game with a prejudice against the use of the K.
Computers have no preconceptions. They just objectively evaluate whether or
not a K move is appropriate.

I recall several letters someone wrote to Larry Evans on Chess some years
ago, in which the writer claimed that he'd made an important contribution to
the theory of chess by identifying the K as a "mini-Queen," and using it
more actively. Larry said there was already a term for what he was talking
about. It's called "looking for the best move."
Bob

On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:52:58 GMT, EZoto wrote:

We don't realize how strong and important the King is as a complete piece.

Does anyone have opinions on how many "points" the power of the king
as a piece is worth? In the opening and middle game I'd say about 1.5
to 2 points. In the endgame - at least 2.5 points, probably more
(perhaps as much as 4).


-------------------------------------
Replace you know what by "j" to email.

Jud McCranie asked and opined:

Does anyone have opinions on how many "points" the power of the king
as a piece is worth? In the opening and middle game I'd say about 1.5
to 2 points. In the endgame - at least 2.5 points, probably more
(perhaps as much as 4)

I think your opinion is correct. That is what I've read. The King is at least
as strong as any minor piece. The king combines the moves of the rook and
bishop exactly the historical moves of the queen before she acquired her over
arching mobility with her board sweeping scope of action.

"Jud McCranie" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:52:58 GMT, EZoto wrote:

We don't realize how strong and important the King is as a complete
piece.

Does anyone have opinions on how many "points" the power of the king
as a piece is worth? In the opening and middle game I'd say about 1.5
to 2 points. In the endgame - at least 2.5 points, probably more
(perhaps as much as 4).

I remember reading 4.5 points somewhere, for what that's worth.

Matt