Nolot Position #8. No win?

[Vinvin]

Nolot suite has positions, that took 20 hours for Deep Thought/Blue to solve and some were unsolved. SF solves all now instantly except buggy 9 .

Bluefish-12-W-x86-64-modern, 1 core on an old i7@4 Ghz (current AMD cores are about 2 times faster)

Code: Select all

  1) Ng4xh6             Ng4xh6  * 0 Seconds
  2) Rc1xc5             Rc1xc5  * 0 Seconds
  3) Nf3xg5             Nf3xg5  * 0 Seconds
  4) Nd4xe6             Nd4xe6  * 0 Seconds
  5) e4-e5              e4-e5   * 0 Seconds
  6) .. a6xb5           a6xb5   * 0 Seconds
  7) Rd1xd8             Rd1xd8  * 0 Seconds
  8) Bd3xh7             Bd3xh7  * 4 Seconds
  9) Nf3-g5             Ng4xh6   
 10) Rf1xf7             Rf1xf7  * 0 Seconds
 11) Rg6xh6             Rg6xh6  * 1 Second

[Vinvin]

Nolot suite has positions, that took 20 hours for Deep Thought/Blue to solve and some were unsolved. SF solves all now instantly except buggy 9 .

Do you have a source for this please?

Here : https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.c ... ExhS5mV9QJ
and here : http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 03#p748503

Code: Select all

Feng-Hsiung Hsu
28 juil. 1994, 20:19:37

Sometime ago, the following 11 positions collected by Pierre Nolot were
posted to rgc. Pierre claimed that no computers can solve any of them
in reasonable time (and no micros in even a few weeks). A long while back, he
might be right. At this point, a few of them are solvable even under
tournament time control. The ones that we tried overnight are all solvable
in a few hours. DT-2 was searching around 3 million nodes/sec during the
runs. The time probably would be reduced by 5-30 times for the harder
problems if the machine has a better quiescence search.

The comments below might be considered spoilers. The first line for
each position is in a computer-readable notation.

1 ;r3;q;b1;k/1;b4;p1/;p2;p;r2;p/3;n4/p;n;p1n1n1/6rp/1b3pp1/1b1qr1k1/40

white to move

8 R * - * Q B - K
7 * B * - * - P -
6 P * - P R * - P
5 * - * N * - * -
4 p N P * n * n *
3 * - * - * - r p
2 - b - * - p p *
1 * b * q r - k -

a b c d e f g h

Source: Kasparov-Karpov, Lyon 1990.

Kasparov played Nh6 here. DT-2 agreed with Kasparov's analysis after
going down the line given in Informant, but could not find the move
on its own in one hour time. When letting it run overnight, it produced
Nh6 after 8 hours (but would play it with a 6 hours/move time control; that
is, it got first indication that the combination might work after about 6
hours), with the variation 1. Nh6! c3 2. Nf5 cb2 3. Qg4 ... which wins for
white.

2 ;r4;r;k1/;p;p1;n1;p1;p/1;n;qP2;p1/2;b1p1b1/4nq2/1b3p2/pp2k2p/2r5/40

White to move

8 R * - * - R K *
7 P P * N * P * P
6 - N Q p - * P *
5 * - B - p - b -
4 - * - * n q - *
3 * b * - * p * -
2 p p - * k * - p
1 * - r - * - * -

a b c d e f g h

Source: Bronstein-Ljubojevic, Petropolis 1973.

Solution is 1. Rc5! Nc5 2. Nf6 Kh8 3. Qh4... Solved under tournament
time control (3 minutes/move, plus extra time if the value for the move
is unstable). Plays it after 2 minutes. Actually spent 4.5 minutes before
the value stabilized to about a piece up.

3 ;r2;q;k2;r/;p;p;p1;b1;p;p/2;n1;p3/3;pp1;n1/3p2;b1/2pb1nn1/pp4pp/r1bqk2r/40

White to move

8 R * - Q K * - R
7 P P P - B - P P
6 - * N * P * - *
5 * - * P p - N -
4 - * - p - * B *
3 * - p b * n n -
2 p p - * - * p p
1 r - b q k - * r

a b c d e f g h

Source: Smagin-Sahovic, Biel 1990.

Solution move is 1. Ng5!. Verified that the move is sound by following
the published analysis, but could not play it within one hour time. This
is more a positional sac than what would be normally called tactics.

4 ;r1;b1;k;b1;r/1;p1;n1;p;p;p/;p2;p;p;n2/6bb/2;qnp3/2n5/ppp2ppp/r2q1rk1/40

White to move

8 R * B * K B - R
7 * P * N * P P P
6 P * - P P N - *
5 * - * - * - b b
4 - * Q n p * - *
3 * - n - * - * -
2 p p p * - p p p
1 r - * q * r k -

a b c d e f g h

Source: Keres-Kotov, Budapest 1950.

Solution: 1. Ne6 Qe6 2. Nd5 Kd8 3. Bg4. Plays it after 3.8 hours, would play
it under 2.5 hour/move time control.

5 ;r2;q;r;b1;k/1;p1;b2;p1/;p2;p;p;n1;p/8/3np3/1bn5/ppp3qp/1k3rr1/40

White to move

8 R * - Q R B - K
7 * P * B * - P -
6 P * - P P N - P
5 * - * - * - * -
4 - * - n p * - *
3 * b n - * - * -
2 p p p * - * q p
1 * k * - * r r -

a b c d e f g h

Source: Spassky-Petrosian, Moskow 1969.

Took 4 hours to find e5!. 1. e5! de5 2. Ne4 Nh5 3. Qg6... More than a
piece up. The minimum time control needed to play it is around 2 hours/move.

6 ;r;n;b;q;k2;r/1;p3;p;p;p/;p7/1n;pp;p3/qpp1p1;n1/p4n2/4k;bpp/r1b2b1r/41

Black to move

8 R N B Q K * - R
7 * P * - * P P P
6 P * - * - * - *
5 * n P p P - * -
4 q p p * p * N *
3 p - * - * n * -
2 - * - * k B p p
1 r - b - * b * r

a b c d e f g h

Source: Melaniuk-Ivanchuk, USSR 1988.

Ivanchuk played 1. ... ab5! which appears to be a sound positional sacrifice.
Calling this position a tactical one, however, is a little unfair on Pierre's
part. Ivanchuk, by the way, could not find the best continuations over the
board, but won it anyway due to Melaniuk's inaccurate defence. Could not
solve it in one hour. Probably a home preparation. The same move was
replayed 3 years later in some random tournament.

7 1;r1;b;k2;r/2r2;p;p;p/;p3;p3/1;b2p2;q/4qp2/4n3/1b4pp/3r2k1/40

White to move

8 - R - B K * - R
7 * - r - * P P P
6 P * - * P * - *
5 * B * - p - * Q
4 - * - * q p - *
3 * - * - n - * -
2 - b - * - * p p
1 * - * r * - k -

a b c d e f g h

Source: unknown.

This one we left the machine ran overnight. It found that 1. Rd8! wins.
1. Rd8! Kd8 2. Ra7 and if 2. ... Qe2 3. Qd4 Ke8 4. h3... Took 12 hours
to get the value back, but would have played it if the time control
is 6 hours/move.

8 ;r3;r;b;k1/;p;p;q2;p;p;p/2;b1;pb2/8/6q1/1p1b3p/p1p2pp1/r2r2k1/40

White to move

8 R * - * R B K *
7 P P Q - * P P P
6 - * B * P b - *
5 * - * - * - * -
4 - * - * - * q *
3 * p * b * - * p
2 p * p * - p p *
1 r - * r * - k -

a b c d e f g h

Source: Gufeld-Osnos, USSR 1978.

The move played was 1. Bh7, but as it turns out 1. Bh7 might not be the
best move. Osnos defended poorly and got slaughtered. With best black
defence, white only maintains a positional edge after 1. Bh7 Kh7 2. Qh5
Kg8 3. Rd4 Bf3! (with the idea of Qxc2, and then Q to king side to defend
the king). DT-2 prefers to play c4, which threatens Bh7 for real.

9 ;r4;r1;k/4;b;p;p;b/2;n1;p2;p/;p1;n1p3/1;p1;p1bnp/3p1np1/;qp2qpb1/2rr2k1/40

White to move

8 R * - * - R - K
7 * - * - B P P B
6 - * N * P * - P
5 P - N - p - * -
4 - P - P - b n p
3 * - * p * n p -
2 Q p - * q p b *
1 * - r r * - k -

a b c d e f g h

Source: unknown.

After 9 minutes, it played 1. Nf6, expecting 1. ... Rfc8 2. Nh7 Kh7 3. Ra1 ...
The score was slightly nagative for white. On longer searches, it went up
to half a pawn and creeping up.

10 ;r1;b2;r;k1/1;p1;n;b;p;p;p/;p;q1;p4/3b4/p2np3/2n1;p3/1pp3pp/r2q1r1k/40

White to move

8 R * B * - R K *
7 * P * N B P P P
6 P Q - P - * - *
5 * - * b * - * -
4 p * - n p * - *
3 * - n - P - * -
2 - p p * - * p p
1 r - * q * r * k

a b c d e f g h

Source: Van der Wiel-Ribli, Amsterdam 1980.

Solution is 1. Rf7 Rf7 2. Bf7 Kf7 3. Qh5. Plays it in less than 2 minutes,
score stablized within 5 minutes to a pawn plus.

11 ;r1;b3;k1/;p2;p1;np1/2;p;q;r1r;p/1;p2;p2p/2b1p;nq1/1p6/p1pp4/1k4r1/40

White to move

8 R * B * - * K *
7 P - * P * N p -
6 - * P Q R * r P
5 * P * - P - * p
4 - * b * p N q *
3 * p * - * - * -
2 p * p p - * - *
1 * k * - * - r -

a b c d e f g h

Source: unknown

Be6 appears somewhat worse for white, but 1. Rh6 Nh6 2. Qg5 Nf7 3. Qd8 appears
to be a repetition draw or slightly ahead for white. Plays 1. Rh6 after
5 minutes, thought white was slightly ahead, but going down the line, it
appeared that black had enough pressure for a draw.

[MikeB]

Nolot suite has positions, that took 20 hours for Deep Thought/Blue to solve and some were unsolved. SF solves all now instantly except buggy 9 .

Do you have a source for this please?

He's probably recalling this from memory , but this wayback link may help you.

http://web.archive.org/web/200404200208 ... nolot1.txt

for example #1: "A very deep combination, that Tasc R30 or Genius 2 running on a pentium would
take between a few months and a few years to find."

[d]r3qb1k/1b4p1/p2pr2p/3n4/Pnp1N1N1/6RP/1B3PP1/1B1QR1K1 w - - 0 1

Keep in mind , the nps rate back in '93 for some these dedicated devices were most likely in the low hundreds to perhaps a few thousand.

Of course software is much better as well ..Nxh6 is found in less than 10,000 nodes with single thread

mover viewpoint fewer / Multi-PV setting = 1 / more
exclude: none best +tail
dep score nodes time (not shown: tbhits knps seldep)
25 30 seconds
25 +1.17! 59.9M 0:29.95 Nxh6!
24 +1.14 57.2M 0:28.65 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Rg5 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 c3 Nf7+ Kg8 Bg6 Nf4 Bxc3 Nbd5 Rb1 Bc6 Bd2 Nxg6 Rxg6 Nf6 Rb6 Kxf7 Rxf6+ Kxf6 Rxc6+ Ke5 g3 Ke4 Kg2 a5 Rc7 Kd3 Bf4 Re8 Rd7+ Ke2
24 +1.11? 56.9M 0:28.49 Nxh6 Rxh6?
24 +1.19! 53.1M 0:26.66 Nxh6!
24 +1.17! 47.1M 0:23.67 Nxh6!
23 20 seconds
23 +1.14 41.5M 0:20.89 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Rg5 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 c3 Nf7+ Kg8 Bg6 Nf4 Bxc3 Nbd5 Rb1 Bc6 Bd2 Nxg6 Rxg6 Ne7 Rxc6 Nxc6 Ng5 Rd8 Be3 Be7 Rb6 Nb4 h4 Bxg5 hxg5 Rd1+ Kh2
23 +1.07 39.5M 0:19.87 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Rg5 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 c3 Nf7+ Kg8 Bg6 Nf4 Bxc3 Nbd5 Rb1 Bc6 Bd2 Nxg6 Rxg6 Ne7 Rxc6 Nxc6 Ng5 Rd8 Be3 Be7 Rb6 Nb4 h4 Bxg5 hxg5 Rd1+ Kh2
23 +1.05! 34.6M 0:17.46 Nxh6!
23 +1.01! 29.5M 0:14.87 Nxh6!
23 +0.98? 28.4M 0:14.31 Nxh6 Rxh6?
22 10 seconds
22 +0.93 22.7M 0:11.47 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Rg5 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 c3 Nf7+ Kg8 Bg6 Nf4 Bxc3 Nxg6 Bxb4 Kxf7 Rd7+ Kf6 Rxg6+ Kxg6 Rxb7 Bxb4 Rxb4 a5 Rc4 Rb8 g3
22 +0.95! 19.9M 0:10.01 Nxh6!
22 +0.91! 17.5M 0:08.79 Nxh6!
22 +0.88! 14.1M 0:07.13 Nxh6!
21 +0.90 10.4M 0:05.23 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Rxc3 Bg7 Rf3 Rf8 Bxg7 Kxg7 Rg3+ Kh8 Rd4 Rf4 Rg4 Rxd4 Rxd4 Bc6 Bf3 Kg7 Rc4 Bd7 Rc5 Be6 Kh2 Kg8
21 +0.91? 8.83M 0:04.41 Nxh6 Rxh6?
20 +0.94 8.15M 0:04.09 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Rxc3 Bg7 Rf3 Rf8 Bxg7 Kxg7 Rg3+ Kh8 Rd4 Rf4 Rg4 Rxd4 Rxd4 Bc6 a5 Kg7 Rc4
20 +0.89? 7.48M 0:03.75 Nxh6 Rxh6?
20 +0.92? 7.22M 0:03.62 Nxh6 Rxh6?
19 +0.96 6.98M 0:03.51 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Rxc3 Bg7 Rf3 Rf8 Bxg7 Rxf3 Bxf3 Kxg7 Rd4 a5 Rc4 Nd3 Be4
19 +0.92? 6.38M 0:03.21 Nxh6 Rxh6?
19 +0.95? 6.25M 0:03.15 Nxh6 Rxh6?
18 +1.05 5.62M 0:02.85 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Rxc3 Bg7 Rf3 Rf8 Bxg7 Kxg7 Rg3+ Kh7 Bg6+ Kh8 Rd4 a5 Rh4 Bc6 Rxh6+ Kg7
17 +1.04 3.63M 0:01.86 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Rxc3 Bg7 Rf3 Rf8 Bxg7 Kxg7 Rd4 Rxf3 Bxf3
16 +0.97 1.96M 0:01.00 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ Kh8 Rxd1 Nf4 Rd2 Nxg6 Rxg6 Nd3 Bc3 Kh7 Rb6 Be4
15 +0.95 1.79M 0:00.91 Nxh6 Rxh6 Nxd6 Qh5 Bg6 Qxd1 Nf7+ Kg8 Nxh6+ gxh6 Bh5+ Kh7 Rxd1 c3 Rxc3 Bg7 Rf3 Bxb2 Rf7+ Kh8 Rxb7 Be5 Be2
14 0 seconds
14 +0.82 1.74M 0:00.89 Nxh6
14 +0.71 1.11M 0:00.57 Nxh6 c3 Nf5 cxb2 Qg4 Qf7 Rd1 Rxe4 Bxe4 Nf6 Qh4+ Nh5 Rg5 Bxe4 Rxh5+ Kg8 Qxe4
13 +0.49 541784 0:00.28 Nxh6 c3 Nf5 cxb2 Qg4 Qf7 Rd1 Nf4 Qxf4 Qh5 Nc3 Nd5 Rxd5 Bxd5 Nxd5 Qd1+ Kh2 Qxb1
12 +0.49 314241 0:00.17 Nxh6 c3 Kh2 Rxh6 Nxc3 Qh5 Qd4 Qf7 Bc1 Qf6 Qg4 Nxc3 Bxh6 Nxb1 Re6
11 +0.50 143632 0:00.08 Nxh6 c3 Kh2 Rxh6 Nxc3 Qf7 Ne4 Bc6 Ng5 Qh5 Qd4 a5 f4 Be8
10 +0.38 70603 0:00.04 Nxh6 c3 Kh2 Rxh6 Nxc3 Qf7 Ne4 Kg8 Qb3 Rb8 Ng5 Qxf2
9 +0.23 51916 0:00.03 Nxh6 c3 Kh2 Rxh6 Nxc3 Qf7 Ne4 Kg8 Kg1 Bc6
8 +0.17 37596 0:00.02 Nxh6 c3 Kh2 Rxh6 Nxc3 Qh5 Qxh5 Rxh5 Ne4
7 +0.35 24369 0:00.01 Nxh6 c3 Kh2 Rxh6 Nxc3 Qh5 Re6
6 +0.64 10580 0:00.01 Nxh6 c3 Nf7+ Qxf7 Ng5 Rxe1+ Qxe1
5 +0.73 8177 0:00.01 Nxh6 c3 Nf7+ Qxf7 Bc1
4 +0.65 5566 0:00.00 a5 Nd3 Bxd3 cxd3
3 +0.74 4168 0:00.00 a5 c3 Bc1
2 +0.54 3277 0:00.00 Qd4 c3
1 NNUE evaluation using ninu.bin enabled
1 +1.48 85 0:00.00 Rf3
0 #

[MikeB]

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "?"]
[Round "-"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[FEN "r1b3k1/p2p1nP1/2pqr1Rp/1p2p2P/2B1PnQ1/1P6/P1PP4/1K4R1 w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]


1. Rxh6 Nxh6 2. Qg5 Nf7 3. Qd8+ Nxd8 4. h6 Qd4 5. h7+ Kf7 6. g8=Q+ Ke7 7.
h8=Q Kd6 8. Rg7 Qxd2 9. Qf8+ Kc7 10. Qxd8+ Kb7 11. Bxe6 Qd1+ 12. Kb2 Nd3+
13. cxd3 Qd2+
*[/pgn]
It is black that is very happy with the draw at the end.

[Paloma]

Nolot suite has positions, that took 20 hours for Deep Thought/Blue to solve and some were unsolved. SF solves all now instantly except buggy 9 .

Do you have a source for this please?

Here : https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.c ... ExhS5mV9QJ
and here : http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 03#p748503

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolot (with castling rights)

[Dann Corbit]

It is important to consider (for the DT-2 tests) that a single chip was used.
This is obvious from the NPS figures.
So it is not like Deep Blue, unless you multiply the time by a big number.
Deep Blue 2 had 480 of those chips (of course, there would be SMP loss) so you can't just multiply.)

[Vinvin]

Nolot suite has positions, that took 20 hours for Deep Thought/Blue to solve and some were unsolved. SF solves all now instantly except buggy 9 .

Do you have a source for this please?

Here : https://groups.google.com/g/rec.games.c ... ExhS5mV9QJ
and here : http://talkchess.com/forum3/viewtopic.p ... 03#p748503

And here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nolot (with castling rights)

And more from year 2005 :
https://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=470892
https://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=471773
https://www.stmintz.com/ccc/index.php?id=474204

[Dann Corbit]

Look at the depths in the 2005 analysis.
Comical today (a few seconds worth)

[Vinvin]

It is important to consider (for the DT-2 tests) that a single chip was used.
This is obvious from the NPS figures.
So it is not like Deep Blue, unless you multiply the time by a big number.
Deep Blue 2 had 480 of those chips (of course, there would be SMP loss) so you can't just multiply.)

Don't mismatch Deep Thought 2 and Deep Blue.

https://www.chessprogramming.org/Deep_Blue#1995

Each Deep Thought 2 processor searches ... about 400,000 positions per second as a slave processor.
...
The 14-processor Deep Thought 2 typically searches between 3 and 5 million positions per second.
...

So, the test was performed with the full DT2 hardware.

[Dann Corbit]

And Deep Blue 2 searched at 200MPS average and one billion NPS peak.
it took Vondelle's machine to best the peak power.
But, of course, software advances exponentially too,
The current SF would spank DB II on modern hardware.

But then again, the same talented team could advance DB II with today's information to make a new world beater.

So who is the better chess genius, Capablanca or Morphy?
We will never know,
That is the beauty, the passion, and the pain of chess