Answers.Body: <p>Nothing was calculated. They arrived at their results by trial and error.</p>
  
  <p>Some guy would start with a seemingly disadvantageous position and tried to find the shortest mate. His result remained valid until the next guy found a more disadvantageous position or a quicker mate.</p>
  
  <p>A long time later, engines became powerful enough to calculate simple endgames like K+Q v K simply by exhausting all possibilities, but by that time technology was also advanced enough to create the first tablebases.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-01-27T20:53:53.333Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-01-27T20:53:53.333Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Queeg
Answers.Body: <p>Well, it <em>is</em> calculated by tablebases. I can't imagine anybody declaring a definitive number for the minimum moves needed to achieve checkmate with KQ vs. K.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-01-28T08:30:09.050Z
Answers.Text: Well, then you should look into some old books ... ;-)
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-01-28T09:20:29.417Z
Answers.Text: The same books that claimed K+Q vs K+2B to be a draw?
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-01-28T10:29:51.373Z
Answers.Text: To be fair, there is a big difference between KQ-K and KQ-KBB. But yes, those books.
Answers.UserDisplayName: BlindKungFuMaster
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-06-09T16:15:56.910Z
Answers.Text: And how useful are those numbers? If you can mate with KQ vs K in about ten moves, you know you understand it. Likewise if you can consistently do KBN vs K in less than 50. There is nothing comparable for KQ vs KBB. The useful information was on the whole produced mostly by human beings. 
  
  Admittedly, KQ vs KR is a marginal case. And, yes, I do know about John Nunn's work.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Philip Roe
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 3.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2017-01-27T20:49:45.130Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2017-01-27T20:49:45.130Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Glorfindel
Body: <p>To use a simple example, tablebases show that KQ vs. K is won in at most ten moves. But chess books going back many decades, well before tablebases, say the same thing. How was this calculated? </p>
  
Tags: <endgame><calculation><mathematics>
Title: Endgames: How was "maximum moves required" determined before tablebases?
ThreadText: # Endgames: How was "maximum moves required" determined before tablebases?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2017-01-27)
  
  To use a simple example, tablebases show that KQ vs. K is won in at most ten moves. But chess books going back many decades, well before tablebases, say the same thing. How was this calculated?
  
  **Tags:** endgame, calculation, mathematics
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 2 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2017-01-27. Score: 5
  
  Nothing was calculated. They arrived at their results by trial and error.
  
  Some guy would start with a seemingly disadvantageous position and tried to find the shortest mate. His result remained valid until the next guy found a more disadvantageous position or a quicker mate.
  
  A long time later, engines became powerful enough to calculate simple endgames like K+Q v K simply by exhausting all possibilities, but by that time technology was also advanced enough to create the first tablebases.
  
  
  ---
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2017-01-27. Score: 1
  
  Well, it *is* calculated by tablebases. I can't imagine anybody declaring a definitive number for the minimum moves needed to achieve checkmate with KQ vs. K.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_3**: Well, then you should look into some old books ... ;-)  
  > **username_2**: The same books that claimed K+Q vs K+2B to be a draw?  
  > **username_3**: To be fair, there is a big difference between KQ-K and KQ-KBB. But yes, those books.  
  > **username_4**: And how useful are those numbers? If you can mate with KQ vs K in about ten moves, you know you understand it. Likewise if you can consistently do KBN vs K in less than 50. There is nothing comparable for KQ vs KBB. The useful information was on the whole produced mostly by human beings.   Admittedly, KQ vs KR is a marginal case. And, yes, I do know about John Nunn's work.  
  
  ---
  
  