Q + RP Vs, Q Endgames: Accepted Theory and Latest Developments
By Edmar Mednis
In an article in the February-March 1981 issue of CHESS I discussed the
important developments up to then for the Q + RP vs. Q endgame .. Of all the
Q + P vs. Q endgames, the case with a RP is the most important one for the
practical player. This is because it is the one that occurs most frequently
and the reason for this is also quite understandable: the RP is the pawn
least likely to have been exchanged off in earlier play. In the above
article I made the recommendation that a major chess computer program be
used to do the work in analyzing the Q + P vs. Q endgame. The small number
of pieces remaining on the board. makes this endgame quite analyzable for
the programs with lots of
"brute force". On the other hand, the extreme tediousness of such endgames
makes them very unpleasant for a human analyst. In 1985 my wish was
answered: the former World Champion computer chess program BELLE spent the
better half of its time that year in undertaking a definitive study of this
endgame. In the process BELLE has generated a "truckload" of information.
Unfortunately, the very extensivness of it makes the gob of a human in
tackling it still very hard. Because I had published work on the Q + RP vs.
Q endgame, I decided to take advantage of BELLE's "expertise" and
calculating ability in this area. I selected the six endgames from recent
tournament play that seemed to me to be the most important ones
theoretically and asked BELLE to comment on them, thus
providing both evaluations and analysis to us humans.
This article is based on the results from BELLE's work. I am greatly
indebted to Ken Thompson, the chief "brain" behind BELLE and to
International Master Mike Valvo for their help and cooperation in
fulfilling my request and explaining BELLE's "thinking". An important
aspect of the latter is that because of its 1985 work, BELLE has developed
an extensive database of positions which are won and drawn. Because it
believes in playing "objective chess" BELLE refuses to play out for a win
those positions which, according to its program, are theoretical draws.
Therefore for such positions we can not learn what the best winning tries
are. My method will consist of presenting the endgames as BELLE sees them.
I will explain why the moves played are good and bad and will compare
BELLLE's conclusions with those of noted human analysts. As will be seen,
the humans are wrong a lot. The reason is that - as I indicated earlier -
this is the most difficult endgame for us to analyze. Implicit in my
presentation is my belief that there is no reason to doubt BELLE's
analysis. I will discuss here two of the endgames: first where the humans
play the worst and then the best played one. At the end of the column I
will summarize the major results from the study of all six of the endgames.