Is it quicker for a king to catch a pawn when it goes across in a diagonal. Say for instance pawn is on edge of board and King is on 3rd from the right. should it cut across to the left, then zag to the right?
I zigged when I should have zagged.
--Jack Roper ,boxer
Maybe a diagram would help to express your thoughts?
P.S. Square of the pawn, dude.
There was this video I saw about some endgame study by Richard Reti. I can't remember what the paradox was. Something about cutting in the opposite direction, but can't remember what the variables were. Interesting enough if you cut say left then cut right you can get from a to b in same amount of moves. But you cover more of the board. Like here: From h7 to h1. h7-g6-f5-e4-f3-g2-h1=6moves or h7-h6-h5-h4-h3-h2-h1=6 moves. never know. Might come in handy. :)
The simplest way to determine your path is to count squares. Assuming it is just the king and the pawn, how many squares (moves) will it take for the pawn to promote as opposed to how many squares will it take for the king to stop it. Of course it other pieces are involved it gets more complicated.
You mean this?
The idea of "moving the opposite way" as you put it is something of an illusion. It's helpful to remember the square of the pawn. Notice in the solution, the 3rd move 3.Ke5 moves closer to the square of the pawn.
Is it quicker for a king to catch a pawn when it goes across in a diagonal. Say for instance pawn is on edge of board and King is on 3rd from the right. should it cut across to the left, then zag to the right?