Single Comment

> Ah, HG, to me the setup you describe is maybe too linear to adequately
represent the situation.

No idea what you mean by 'too linear'. But note that this could be the
initial position of a very siple Chess variant, and has only short-range
pieces.

> I agree things like this can happen in a game, somewhere, somewhen, but
only after a considerable amount of precursor action.

The point is that in games between strong, approximately equal players most
games eventually get to the stage of a Pawn ending, or where you can
threaten to convert to a Pawn ending. If all such Pawn endings are always
won for one side (because he advanced one rank more than the opponent), it
has a huge impact on the win percentage.

> Further, I see the 75 moves as minimal, because that is the least amount
of time it takes for anything significant to happen in the game as it is
set up. Nobody can win or even really threaten another piece seriously in
less than 75 turns, so I do see that as a minimum number of turns to
promotion.

Again not sure what you want to say with this. You mean that irrespective
of the depth of the board, promotions are always 'fast'? But then this
doesn't seem to mean anything.

> Throw in a knight or two, and you change the equation. But then neither
of us can say for sure what would happen then [although probably not much,
once you consider what a couple pawns and a knight could do against a
couple pawns and a knight, when all pawns are passed but 75 moves from
promotion...]

Well, with more pieces without mating potential you obviously have to add
more Pawns as well, or it will be a trivial draw (because you can easily
devote a minor to blocking a Pawn, or even sac it). But I don't think it
changes much. There will be many positions where you win when you move them
up just a single rank, which are draw whan you don't.

The only way to know the impact for sure is to play a couple of thousand
games, where you advance one of the sides comapred to the other (i.e. FIDE
on 8x10).