Page 42 of 42

Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Posted: Sun Apr 05, 2020 7:19 pm
by Ovyron
jp wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 8:16 am
If playing a game is so important, then so far you have only two pieces of data on this forum to base your opinion on. Yet you talk about "everything I've seen", etc.
I'm talking about the mountain of analysis that I've accumulated, that would be enough to beat Zenmastur easily (unless 1.g4 draws!) Now, I don't know how much that matters, so let's also say that I'd be able to beat Harvey Williamson easily.

With the laughable amount of analysis I had back in October, I wouldn't have been able to beat anyone.

Playing a game is so important because of the amount of analysis that we accumulate (for comparison, what CBDN has on 1.g4 is less than what I had on October!) after the games are over, not about data points (where two games mean nothing).

In theory, someone could produce that same analysis without needing to play a game. In practice, they never have to commit to a move, so they could say a position is draw, or another is won by black, conclusively, even if on an actual game they'd lose the former or failed to win the latter. Only an actual game can show that.

Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Posted: Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:33 pm
by Exa65536
Ovyron wrote:
Sun Apr 05, 2020 2:57 am
Measuring by nodes does not convince me, though, I'd still like to see a draw against Depth 39 (on Game 1 I was still able to produce potential drawing lines against Depth 38, up until the very end, so D39 is where the line could be drawn and it'd be enough to defeat any defense.)
Drawing line versus depth39, as requested

Re: 1.g4 opening is losing?

Posted: Sun May 03, 2020 3:38 am
by Ovyron
Exa65536 wrote:
Fri Apr 17, 2020 2:33 pm
Drawing line versus depth39, as requested

So now we have a line that Depth 60 can't defend and yours where depth 39 can't win. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and I wonder if this path (one finds a line depth 40 can't win, then one where depth 41 can't win) could lead to the truth (there's some depth that is enough to beat any defense. Unfortunately we reach a "game takes an entire month" limit very soon...)

Re: A small test...

Posted: Fri May 08, 2020 3:15 am
by Zenmastur
Zenmastur wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:52 am
... snip snip ...

Could you do a small test analysis for us? Something not too difficult like analyze this position to mate:

No outside help please!
... snip snip ...
Before I forget, the origin of the position in the test was from my analysis of the game Tal-Koblenc 1957

After 31... Rd7

The best line of play appears to be:

Code: Select all

( [Stockfish 030520 64 POPCNT] 74:M29 32.g5 Qg3 33.g6 Qxe3+ 34.Kb1 Qe1+ 35.Rxe1 Bxe1 36.Nxa7 axb5 37.Nxc8 d3 38.cxd3 Bd2 39.Nd6 Bh6 40.Ne8 Kxe8 41.Qxg8+ Ke7 42.Rxg7+ Bxg7 43.Qxg7+ Kd6 44.Qf8+ Ke5 45.g7 Rxg7 46.Qxg7+ Kd6 47.Qb7 Kc5 48.Qe7+ Kd5 49.Qd7+ Ke5 50.Qxb5+ Kf6 51.a4 f4 52.a5 f3 53.Qc5 f2 54.Qxf2+ Ke7 55.a6 e5 56.a7 e4 57.a8=Q e3 58.Qxe3+ Kd6 59.Qd8+ Kc6 60.Qeb6# )
But this is way too easy to find. The second best move, 32.gxf5, leads to the test position after 32... Qg3 33.R7h3 Qd6 34.Qxg8+ Kxg8 35.fxe6 Qxe6
we now have this: