The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: Harvey Williamson, bob, hgm

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Jouni
Posts: 2223
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:15 pm

The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by Jouni » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:24 am

Who has good candidates?
Jouni

Dann Corbit
Posts: 11621
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by Dann Corbit » Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:34 pm

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.
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.

jp
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:54 am

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by jp » Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:23 pm

Dann Corbit wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:34 pm
I guess it will be a function of how we define famous.
We also have to decide if we mean simply cooked (having a second solution) or plain wrong (refuted).

mwyoung
Posts: 2433
Joined: Wed May 12, 2010 8:00 pm

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by mwyoung » Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:57 am

Jouni wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:24 am
Who has good candidates?
Here is my candidate.



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
Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
take on me. Foes 0.

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by Ovyron » Tue Feb 11, 2020 6:13 am

jp wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 9:23 pm
Dann Corbit wrote:
Mon Feb 10, 2020 8:34 pm
I guess it will be a function of how we define famous.
We also have to decide if we mean simply cooked (having a second solution) or plain wrong (refuted).
I find really interesting that it is less about chess and more about the words we use in our language and their inherent vagueness.

jdart
Posts: 4009
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:23 am
Location: http://www.arasanchess.org

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by jdart » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:07 am

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.

zullil
Posts: 6442
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:31 pm
Location: PA USA
Full name: Louis Zulli

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by zullil » Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:47 am

jdart wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:07 am
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.
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.

User avatar
Ovyron
Posts: 4393
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2007 2:30 am

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by Ovyron » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:03 pm

jdart wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 11:07 am
The thing that impresses me is how much of pre-computer and pre-TB endgame analysis by humans is flawed, or wrong.
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.

Jouni
Posts: 2223
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:15 pm

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by Jouni » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:10 pm

Speaking of endgames here's Alekhine - Capablanca position


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

jp
Posts: 1404
Joined: Mon Apr 23, 2018 5:54 am

Re: The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

Post by jp » Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:25 pm

mwyoung wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 12:57 am
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!
Yes, it was, but do you know of any analysis of BB vs N that claimed to show it?

Ovyron wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:03 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??
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).

Jouni wrote:
Tue Feb 11, 2020 5:10 pm
Speaking of endgames here's Alekhine - Capablanca position

And analysis from 2005! "..."
But I noticed soon in testgames, that surprisingly 1.Rd5! is the best move.
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.)

Post Reply