The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
Moderators: hgm, Rebel, chrisw
-
- Posts: 3293
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:15 pm
-
- Posts: 12542
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:57 pm
- Location: Redmond, WA USA
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
I guess it will be a function of how we define famous.
I think the most interesting cook was found by Alexander Szabo when he cooked WAC.230.
I do not know if it was a computer that helped him discover it, or if he did it purely by himself.
If you go to sites like Yacpdb and Arves you can search on cooked and find lots of them.
I think the most interesting cook was found by Alexander Szabo when he cooked WAC.230.
I do not know if it was a computer that helped him discover it, or if he did it purely by himself.
If you go to sites like Yacpdb and Arves you can search on cooked and find lots of them.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
-
- Posts: 1470
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:54 am
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
We also have to decide if we mean simply cooked (having a second solution) or plain wrong (refuted).
-
- Posts: 2727
- Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 10:00 pm
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
Here is my candidate.
[d]5B2/1n6/1k6/3K4/B7/8/8/8 w - - 0 1
This position was thought to be drawn for over a century. It is a mate in 57 moves!
Special rule in chess.
Chess rules 3: The new 75-move rule
2 states: “any series of at least 75 moves have been made by each player without the movement of any pawn and without any capture. If the last move resulted in checkmate, that shall take precedence.”Aug 23, 2018
"The worst thing that can happen to a forum is a running wild attacking moderator(HGM) who is not corrected by the community." - Ed Schröder
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
But my words like silent raindrops fell. And echoed in the wells of silence.
-
- Posts: 4556
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:30 am
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
-
- Posts: 4367
- Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:23 am
- Location: http://www.arasanchess.org
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
The thing that impresses me is how much of pre-computer and pre-TB endgame analysis by humans is flawed, or wrong. Müller and Lamprecht's Fundamental Chess Endings has many examples.
-
- Posts: 6442
- Joined: Tue Jan 09, 2007 12:31 am
- Location: PA USA
- Full name: Louis Zulli
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
A lot of chess analysis by humans is flawed or wrong. It's just more obvious with endgame positions, where the errors have greater (and more immediate) consequences and we have perfect information that allows us to recognize them.
-
- Posts: 4556
- Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 4:30 am
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
Even in current times with computer and TB endgame analysis, chess analysis in general is flawed, or wrong, and top level corr games are decided when one player maximizes the chances that the other player's analysis becomes flawed, or wrong.
I sometimes wonder about TB positions, people keep referencing them as the ultimate solution of chess, because for any position with n pieces you can know what moves win, draw or lose. But, can you conceive that there's an undiscovered bug that has one of those positions tagged wrongly? That when you follow the lines the draw evaporated or the win evaporates??
I can, I'd wake up and there would be a new Talkchess thread with the title "Syzygy TB has wrong solution for this position" or something, and people take a look at it. And all studies or games hanging from this "solved" position are wrong.
In chess there's no guarantees.
-
- Posts: 3293
- Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:15 pm
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
Speaking of endgames here's Alekhine - Capablanca position
[d]8/5pk1/r5pp/P7/3R3P/6P1/5PK1/8 w - - 0 1
And analysis from 2005! "Alekhine won by playing 1.Ra4! in the above position. Black's rook has to block the pawn and white has at his disposal an endless reserve of rook moves along the a-file. Again, the future for black spells "Zugzwang". The general rule is that a passed pawn should be supported by a rook from the rear. That's why ideas of 1.Rd5? are wrong."
But I noticed soon in testgames, that surprisingly 1.Rd5! is the best move.
[d]8/5pk1/r5pp/P7/3R3P/6P1/5PK1/8 w - - 0 1
And analysis from 2005! "Alekhine won by playing 1.Ra4! in the above position. Black's rook has to block the pawn and white has at his disposal an endless reserve of rook moves along the a-file. Again, the future for black spells "Zugzwang". The general rule is that a passed pawn should be supported by a rook from the rear. That's why ideas of 1.Rd5? are wrong."
But I noticed soon in testgames, that surprisingly 1.Rd5! is the best move.
Jouni
-
- Posts: 1470
- Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 7:54 am
Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?
Yes, it was, but do you know of any analysis of BB vs N that claimed to show it?
Clearly, the more independent TBs the better, so e.g. we can be quite comfortable with 5-man positions, where we have many different TBs (though not so much if we have access to only one of the many).Ovyron wrote: ↑Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:03 pm I sometimes wonder about TB positions, people keep referencing them as the ultimate solution of chess, because for any position with n pieces you can know what moves win, draw or lose. But, can you conceive that there's an undiscovered bug that has one of those positions tagged wrongly? That when you follow the lines the draw evaporated or the win evaporates??
Whose 2005 analysis is that?
What were the results after 1.Rd5 compared with 1.Ra4?
e.g. if they are both winning, 1.Ra4 would be the human way. (M&L also give it an exclamation mark.)