Hard talkchess 2016 set in PGN

[peter]

Hi Vincent!
Thanks for the collection!
I took the liberty to let latest SF run a Backward of your 139.pgn of the position in discussion and kept most of the evals to show the realtions between them.
Eelco's 11...h5 with some moves from Forward- Backward- Forward with SF became main variant but doesn't change the outcome probably, which is not fully clear to be won anyhow.
Yet I think 1.Nf5 a clear best move:

[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "W"]
[Black "B"]
[Result "*"]
[Annotator "Martan,Peter"]
[FEN "2r1k2r/4qpp1/p3p2p/1pn1P3/3N2P1/P7/1PP3QP/1K1R2R1 w k - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]

1.Nf5 { [%eval 115,44] } ( 1.h4 { [%eval 46,39] } 1...g6 { [%eval 61,33] } 2.Qd2 { [%eval 66,35] } 2...Nd7 { [%eval 52,34] } 3.Rgf1 h5 4.Qa5 Nc5 5.Rf4 Qc7 6.Qd2 Rd8 7.Qf2 hxg4 8.Rxg4 Rd5 9.Rf1 Rf8 10.Nf3 Nd7 11.Re4 Qc5 12.Qg2 Qc6 13.Re2 Rxe5 14.Nxe5 Qxg2 15.Rxg2 Nxe5 16.Rg5 f6 17.Rg3 Ke7 18.Re1 { [%eval 81,37] } ) ( 1.g5 hxg5 2.Nf3 Qb7 3.Rdf1 g6 4.Nxg5 Qxg2 5.Rxg2 Rc7 6.Rf4 Nb7 7.h4 Nd8 8.Rgf2 a5 9.R2f3 Rh5 10.b3 Rh8 { [%eval 55,33] } ) 1...exf5 { [%eval 107, 40] } 2.gxf5 { [%eval 97,40] } 2...f6 { [%eval 110,43] } ( 2...Rg8 3.Rd5 { !? } ( 3.e6 { ?! } 3...fxe6 4.fxe6 g5 { !? } ( 4...g6 5.Rgf1 a5 6.Rde1 b4 7.Qg3 Nxe6 8.Rxe6 Qxe6 9.Re1 Kd7 10.Rxe6 Kxe6 11.axb4 axb4 12.Qg4+ Kf7 13.Qxb4 { +/- } ) 5.Rge1 g4 { [%emt 0:00:08] } ) 3...g5 ( 3...Qc7 $6 4.Re1 g6 5.Re3 Kf8 ( 5...Rd8 $2 6.Rxd8+ Kxd8 7.Qa8+ { ! } ( 7.Qd5+ Kc8 8.Rc3 Rd8 9.Qxc5 Qxc5 10.Rxc5+ Kb7 { +/- } ) 7...Qc8 8.Qd5+ Ke8 9.f6 { [%eval 752,30] } ) 6.e6 { [%eval 140,33] } ) ( 3...g6 $6 4.Rgd1 Qc7 5.Rd6 { [%eval 111,33] } ) 4.Qh3 Na4 5.Qxh6 Qc7 6.Rc1 Nb6 ( 6...Nxb2 7.Kxb2 Qc3+ { [%eval 73,33] } ) 7.Rd4 Qc5 8.c3 Nc4 ( 8...Qxe5 { [%eval 92,33] } ) 9.Qh7 Rf8 10.e6 Qe5 11.f6 Qxe6 12.Rcd1 Qxf6 13.Re4+ Ne5 14.Qh3 { [%eval 125,35] } ) 3.exf6 { [%eval 97,46] } 3...Qxf6 { [%eval 122,43] } 4.Qd5 { [%eval 110,45] } 4...Kf8 { [%eval 121,41] } 5.Rg6 { [%eval 112,44] } 5...Qf7 { [%eval 122, 41] } 6.Qd6+ { [%eval 106,43] } 6...Kg8 { [%eval 122,38] } 7.Rdg1 { [%eval 118,43] } 7...Rh7 { [%eval 121,40] } 8.f6 { [%eval 105,40] } 8...Ne6 { [%eval 119,40] } 9.Qxa6 { [%eval 102,38] } 9...Qd7 { [%eval 120,38] } 10.Qb6 { [%eval 115,36] } 10...Re8 { [%eval 131,36] } 11.h4 { [%eval 113,38] } 11...h5 ( 11...Kh8 { [%eval 137,35] } 12.Qf2 { [%eval 127,35] } 12...Rf8 { [%eval 133,35] } ( 12...gxf6 13.Qf5 Qd8 14.Rxf6 Ng7 15.Qf3 Qe7 16.Rf1 Rg8 17.Qc3 { +?- } ) 13.Qf5 { [%eval 125,37] } 13...Qf7 { [%eval 141,38] } 14.fxg7+ { [%eval 136,42] } 14...Nxg7 { [%eval 160,35] } 15.Qxb5 { [%eval 135,40] } 15...Nf5 { [%eval 133,41] } 16.a4 { [%eval 148,40] } 16...Rg7 { [%eval 156,39] } 17.Rxg7 { [%eval 127,37] } 17...Nxg7 { [%eval 154,34] } 18.Qc6 { [%eval 142,35] +/- } ) 12.Qe3 Qc7 13.Qe4 Qf7 14.Qd5 Rd8 15.Qxb5 Rd1+ 16.Rxd1 Qxg6 17.Rd6 Nf8 18.Qc6 { [%eval 124,36] } *
[\pgn]
Edit: how again was that .pgn- representation here to be typed correctly?

[peter]

Too late to edit: forgot to set the commentaries too, at least 1.Nf5 should get ! and 1...h4 and 1...g5 ?! as for my pov

[dadij]

For the second time : check the line !
For a long and accurate line, IDeA has about 0% chance to find the correct continuation.

Carl with his IDeA analysis is actually correct, 1.Nf5 doesn't give white much. Your analysis is flawed. It didn't take me long to see this. I used IDeA too, admittedly taking advantage of a new feature in Aquarium 2016. Hint: Have a look at 10...Kf7 instead of 10...Re8.

[Vinvin]

For the second time : check the line !
For a long and accurate line, IDeA has about 0% chance to find the correct continuation.

Carl with his IDeA analysis is actually correct, 1.Nf5 doesn't give white much. Your analysis is flawed. It didn't take me long to see this. I used IDeA too, admittedly taking advantage of a new feature in Aquarium 2016. Hint: Have a look at 10...Kf7 instead of 10...Re8.

Give your best lines and eval so we can judge ...

[yanquis1972]

either way were talking a difference of a few centipawns between the two moves...i think its an interesting position but a good test move should surely be starkly best?

[Eelco de Groot]

For the second time : check the line !
For a long and accurate line, IDeA has about 0% chance to find the correct continuation.

Carl with his IDeA analysis is actually correct, 1.Nf5 doesn't give white much. Your analysis is flawed. It didn't take me long to see this. I used IDeA too, admittedly taking advantage of a new feature in Aquarium 2016. Hint: Have a look at 10...Kf7 instead of 10...Re8.

By coincidence, that is where I got stuck as well, I am leaning towards a draw but Serpent's eval is still 1.25 here after 16...Rc6. Probably 16. Rg5 Qe1 is the better defence instead of 16. Rg5 Rc6. And I don't have the Syzygy tablebases, let alone Lomonosov that you could probably use to good advantage so maybe someone with tablebases can give an easy answer?

New line using Dadi's Kf7 and 16...Qe1 :

[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2016.05.30"]
[Round "?"]
[White "W"]
[Black "B"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "2r1k2r/4qpp1/p3p2p/1pn1P3/3N2P1/P7/1PP3QP/1K1R2R1 w k -"]

1. Nf5 exf5 2. gxf5 f6 (2... Rg8 3. Rd5 {!?} (3. e6 {?!}
fxe6 4. fxe6 g5 {!?} (4... g6 5. Rgf1 a5 6. Rde1 b4 7. Qg3
Nxe6 8. Rxe6 Qxe6 9. Re1 Kd7 10. Rxe6 Kxe6 11. axb4 axb4
12. Qg4+ Kf7 13. Qxb4 {±}) 5. Rge1 g4 {8}) 3... g5
(3... Qc7 4. Re1 g6 5. Re3 Rd8 6. Rxd8+ Kxd8 7. Qa8+ {!}
(7. Qd5+ Kc8 8. Rc3 Rd8 9. Qxc5 Qxc5 10. Rxc5+ Kb7 {±})
7... Qc8 8. Qd5+ Ke8 9. f6 {+?-}) 4. Qh3 Na4 5. Qxh6 Qc7
6. Rc1 Nb6 7. Rd4 Qc5 8. c3 Nc4 9. Qh7 Rf8 10. e6 Qe5
11. f6 Qxe6 12. Rcd1 Qxf6 13. Re4+ Ne5 14. Qh3 {+?-})
3. exf6 Qxf6 4. Qd5 Kf8 5. Rg6 Qf7 6. Qd6+ Kg8 7. Rdg1 Rh7
8. f6 Ne6 9. Qxa6 Qd7 10. Qb6 Kf7 (10... Re8 11. h4 Kh8
12. Qf2 Rf8 (12... gxf6 13. Qf5 Qd8 14. Rxf6 Ng7 15. Qf3
Qe7 16. Rf1 Rg8 17. Qc3 {+?-}) 13. Qf5 Qf7 14. fxg7+ Nxg7
15. Qxb5 Nf5 16. a4 Rg7 17. Rxg7 Nxg7 18. Qc6 {±}) 11. fxg7
Rxg7 12. Rxg7+ Nxg7 13. Qxh6 Qd4 14. Qg6+ Kf8 15. c3 Qe5
16. Rg5 Qe1+ 17. Ka2 Qe6+ 18. Qxe6 Nxe6 19. Rxb5 Ke7
20. Rh5 $13 {See diagram below, I suspect this can be drawn, but you probably
get a better picture with the Syzygy or other tablebases } *[/pgn]

[D]2r5/4k3/4n3/7R/8/P1P5/KP5P/8 b - -

[Eelco de Groot]

Hi Peter, you can just put the pgn between [ pgn] [/pgn] without leading spaces and then the custom written board software does the rest for you.

Regards, Eelco

[peter]

Hi Peter, you can just put the pgn between [ pgn] [/pgn] without leading spaces and then the custom written board software does the rest for you.

Thanks, Eelco, I thought, that was just what I did, except that you have a space between [ and pgn in your kind of typing [ pgn].
Was that deliberately done so and is this the point indeed?

BTW did you have a look at my .pgn with 11...h5 already?

[Eelco de Groot]

Hi Peter, you can just put the pgn between [ pgn] [/pgn] without leading spaces and then the custom written board software does the rest for you.

Thanks, Eelco, I thought, that was just what I did, except that you have a space between [ and pgn in your kind of typing [ pgn].
Was that deliberately done so and is this the point indeed?

BTW did you have a look at my .pgn with 11...h5 already?

Hi Peter, I think you used the backslash \ and the it does not work... I had to put in a space, otherwise what you see is just [pgn][/pgn]
and that is probably not too helpful.

Other trick to see what other people used is just temporarily open their message quoted, and you see the message tags they used.

I have not really looked to close at the pgn, but I think it is about the same eval that Vincent got? But if Dadi's variation is a draw...

I deleted some of the variations already after 11...h5, I had to switch some Serpent instances for looking at 10...Kf7 My Serpent's endresult I think was

41/86 666:01 +1.10 11...h5 12.Qe3 Qf7 13.Qc3 Rd8 14.Qe5 Rd4
15.Qb8+ Rd8 16.Qxb5 Rd1+ 17.Rxd1 Qxg6
18.Rd6 Qf7 19.a4 gxf6 20.Qf5 Nc7
21.Rd8+ Ne8 22.Qe4 Kf8 23.Rxe8+ Qxe8
24.Qxh7 Qe1+ (283.179.090.954) 7086

Vincent got a higher eval for White that is probably because I used an older Stockfish eval than the Development Stockfish. Or, it still is a draw


Regards, Eelco

[dadij]

By coincidence, that is where I got stuck as well, I am leaning towards a draw but Serpent's eval is still 1.25 here after 16...Rc6. Probably 16. Rg5 Qe1 is the better defence instead of 16. Rg5 Rc6. And I don't have the Syzygy tablebases, let alone Lomonosov that you could probably use to good advantage so maybe someone with tablebases can give an easy answer?

New line using Dadi's Kf7 and 16...Qe1 :

The line you give is correct. My IDeA score after 1.Nf5 is +0.07. Your line can continue: 20...Rc4 21.Kb3 Rf4 and now either 22.a4 or 22.c4. The latest Stockfish should give something close to 0.00 here with 6-piece tablebases.