The most famous study cooked by computer analysis?

[Jouni]

Who has good candidates?

[Dann Corbit]

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.

[jp]

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]

Who has good candidates?

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

[Ovyron]

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]

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]

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.

[Ovyron]

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]

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.

[jp]

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?

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).

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.)