Troitzky line

Endgame analysis using tablebases, EGTB generation, exchange, sharing, discussions, etc..

Troitzky line

Postby Martin Rattigan » Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:02 pm

The Troitzky line rule (relating to the knnkp ending) is generally to be found on the internet as
For the position with White on the attack, Troitsky established that if a black pawn is blockaded (by one of White's knights) on a square no further forward than the line a4-b6-c5-d4-e4-f5-g6-h4, then White can win the resulting endgame (and similarly in reverse for Black), no matter where the other pieces are placed.

The wording is invariably the same, apparently because each occurrence has been copied verbatim from the Wikipaedia article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_knight ... itzky_line.

After some discussion with the man maintaining the Wikipaedia page the Wikipaedia version has been changed to
For the position with White to move, Troitsky established that if a black pawn is securely blockaded (by one of the white knights) on a square no further forward than the line a4–b6–c5–d4–e4–f5–g6–h4, then White can win the resulting endgame (and similarly in reverse for Black), no matter where the other pieces are placed.

I would like to discover how many contributors would regard the new wording as acceptably correct so far as the following (drawn) positions are concerned.

A. 7N/2p5/2N2k2/3K4/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
B. 4N3/6p1/6N1/2k5/8/8/8/7K w - - 0 1
C. N6k/2p5/2N2K2/8/8/8/8/8 w - - 0 1

By "acceptably correct" I mean in the context of a Wikipeda article. In such a context some people may regard, for example, the statement, "king and rook always win against a lone king", as acceptably correct, because the exceptions (black to move can take the rook or it's already stalemate) are sufficiently obvious to be automatically discounted by the reader.

If you would like to leave a reply starting with one of:

y - the statement is acceptably correct in relation to each of the positions
n - the statement is acceptably correct in relation to none of the positions
yyn - the statement is acceptably correct in relation to A and B but not C.
xxx - as for the previous example with each x replace by y or n, the first as regards A, second as regards B and third as regards C.

I would be very grateful.

Feel free, of course, to add comments.
Martin Rattigan
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:43 pm

Re: Troitzky line

Postby Martin Rattigan » Tue Jul 21, 2015 7:14 pm

DON'T POST REPLIES. INFO NO LONGER NEEDED. TA.
Martin Rattigan
 
Posts: 12
Joined: Tue Jun 02, 2015 8:43 pm


Return to Endgame Tablebases

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest