I had to play with 2 bishops against queen in one over the board game once, it was after about 2.5 hours of play and we were both exhausted. I lost of course and was nowhere near as efficient as if a GM was playing it. I mention this as I think I learned a lot more from just playing it and studying it than from simulating with a computer. Since we are not GM level, I would recommend just leaving the computer out of the equation. There is nothing really to be gained from it. True learning will come from studying both sides of queen vs rook with a physical board. Okay, you will not find such accuracy but is the point of chess not to explore and experience and understand?
Thanks. I also think using a computer to practice that specific endgame technique at this moment must be cheating (or at least unethical).
It gets murky because a person will play against a computer just for general practice and find themselves playing opening they are involved in correspondence chess. This must happen all the time.
One of my current opponents is involved in a thematic computer tournament as well as a human thematic tournament in the same opening. How can he avoid this ethical dilema at this point? It is not possible.
Qh1 because that's the weirdest way.
Play the move that wins the game. You are right this question is silly.
The question is a good one and if chess is an aesthetic and artistic game, it may eventually be lifted out of the doldrums it's been in for a while.
Still, can't see it happen when thugs are attracted to the game in droves.
With queen+King against king, my favorite one is :
I like the fact that the king are not in opposition.I tend to favor : the less valuable piecediagonalsmany piecesno redundancies (for exemple, two pieces controlling the same square)