Less Wrong is a community blog devoted to refining the art of human rationality. Please visit our About page for more information.

TrE comments on NonGoogleables - Less Wrong

0 Post author: Thomas 12 January 2012 01:23PM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Article Navigation

Comments (21)

Comments (21)

You are viewing a single comment's thread.

Comment author: TrE 12 January 2012 02:50:03PM *  6 points [-]

For the first one, you may want to google "chess endgame database". First hit (using Ixquick, for me) is an online database where you can quickly confirm that 2 bishops vs. 2 knights is a draw (whereas K+B+B vs. K+N is won for the bishops).

I can't help you about the other two, but I think that searching more general terms might be better if you aren't certain how the professionals talk about the topic in question (e.g. "quantum number conversation").

Comment author: Thomas 12 January 2012 03:11:58PM *  0 points [-]

that 2 bishops vs. 2 knights is a draw

There:

english.turkcebilgi.com/Bishop+(chess)

I found this:

Bishops generally gain in relative strength towards the endgame as more pieces are captured and more open lines are available for them to operate. When the board is empty, a bishop can influence both wings simultaneously, whereas a knight would need a few moves to do so. In an open endgame, a pair of bishops is decidedly superior to either a bishop and a knight, or to two knights. A player possessing a pair of bishops has a strategic weapon in the form of a long-term threat to trade down to an advantageous endgame.

If it's not Googleable, it's bingable.

Still not good enough.

Comment author: TrE 12 January 2012 04:53:13PM 0 points [-]

Well, I was assuming you were talking about the pawnless endgame. For endgames with pawns, I guess there are far too much of them.

Powered by Reddit Powered by Reddit