How close can we come to proving that white draws?

[Albert Silver]

We can make an opening book with only one choice for white but all possible moves for black. The moves for white could be chosen based on the current opening theory with a preference for captures and pawn moves. After 9 plies we'll have about 1.5 million starting positions (35^4) minus transpositions.

Now there are two questions that we can estimate:
1. For how many of these positions can we prove a draw for white now or with future hardware improvements? We could use current mate solvers to show there is no mate for black but it would be better to make a specialized draw searcher program. It will be much easier than looking for mates but still probably hard. We could try to estimate how much faster hardware will help by looking at what percentage gets solved with increasing time limits.

2. What percentage of the ~10^42 total (ignoring the 50-move rule) legal EGTB positions will be reachable from remaining positions? Starting with 1. d4 we don't need to consider any positions with white pawns on d2 etc. It will be quicker to create an 8-piece EGTB. Maybe a 9-piece EGTB is not out of the question?

Any estimates or other ideas about how to go about this?

Not really sure about the need for this. If you follow elite correspondence chess of last few years, it is now well over 90% draws, and entire events are decided by a single win. Most wins and losses are actually not due to the chess, but technicalities such as time losses. The writing is on the wall.

[Dann Corbit]

Coming close to proving means not proving.
Something is proven or it isn't.
We have good educated guesses (most think the game is drawn).
But to prove something means that there is no doubt left whatsoever.

[Uri Blass]

We can make an opening book with only one choice for white but all possible moves for black. The moves for white could be chosen based on the current opening theory with a preference for captures and pawn moves. After 9 plies we'll have about 1.5 million starting positions (35^4) minus transpositions.

Now there are two questions that we can estimate:
1. For how many of these positions can we prove a draw for white now or with future hardware improvements? We could use current mate solvers to show there is no mate for black but it would be better to make a specialized draw searcher program. It will be much easier than looking for mates but still probably hard. We could try to estimate how much faster hardware will help by looking at what percentage gets solved with increasing time limits.

2. What percentage of the ~10^42 total (ignoring the 50-move rule) legal EGTB positions will be reachable from remaining positions? Starting with 1. d4 we don't need to consider any positions with white pawns on d2 etc. It will be quicker to create an 8-piece EGTB. Maybe a 9-piece EGTB is not out of the question?

Any estimates or other ideas about how to go about this?

I suggest first to try to solve some easier problems.

[d]rnb1kbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

Can we prove with the hardware of today that white does not lose and if yes then what is the distance to mate or repetition.

Note that I am practically sure that white is winning but no engine can see a forced mate.
Can engine see at least a forced draw for white(Note that you need to change the search to prove at least a forced draw because engines are not programmed to evaluate repetition of the position as a win for themselves and if you change them to evaluate repetition as a win you need to change the way that they use the hash tables because the question if you can force a repetition is dependent on the history of the game.


what about the following position

[d]4k1n1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1

How many nodes do engines need to search to see a forced mate and how many nodes they need to search to see at least a forced draw for white?

[mwyoung]

We can make an opening book with only one choice for white but all possible moves for black. The moves for white could be chosen based on the current opening theory with a preference for captures and pawn moves. After 9 plies we'll have about 1.5 million starting positions (35^4) minus transpositions.

Now there are two questions that we can estimate:
1. For how many of these positions can we prove a draw for white now or with future hardware improvements? We could use current mate solvers to show there is no mate for black but it would be better to make a specialized draw searcher program. It will be much easier than looking for mates but still probably hard. We could try to estimate how much faster hardware will help by looking at what percentage gets solved with increasing time limits.

2. What percentage of the ~10^42 total (ignoring the 50-move rule) legal EGTB positions will be reachable from remaining positions? Starting with 1. d4 we don't need to consider any positions with white pawns on d2 etc. It will be quicker to create an 8-piece EGTB. Maybe a 9-piece EGTB is not out of the question?

Any estimates or other ideas about how to go about this?

Your method is flawed. There is no trick, mateslover, or fictional draw searcher that could ever answer the question.

Remember chess is a 100 percent tactical game. Wins are not won by material advantage, or another human concept of positional understanding. Chess is won by checkmating the king.

The chess game tree is enormous, and there is no computer advancement, or hidden technology that can get around this fact.

The answer is humans will never know if chess is a forced win or draw.

I still see people here have a hard time understand just how big the game tree in chess truly is and what this means.

How do you know that no draw searcher can answer the question?
It is possible that you can prove by brute force that white needs only 20 moves to force a draw.

I believe that white need more moves for it and probably needs some hundrends of moves but I have no proof.
I suggest to have a game when the target of white is to win by checkmate or simply to survive n plies without a draw when the target of black is to force a mate or draw in less than n plies and based on the value of n when white get practically 50% in engine-engine games we can have a guess how many plies white needs for a draw.


Engines authors will have to change their engine to play this type of game well and they will need to build at least draw searcher(something that for some reason nobody is interested to do without this type of game).

A minimax could do this in theory. But there is no such thing as a draw searcher engine.
But I suggest you get started right away. As the universe will suffer heat death in only trillions of years.

[jefk]

how close are we to prove the earth is not flat ?

this thread almost looks like a joke to me;
happy Friday 13th anyway

In the game chess (besides GM's from Steinitz to Carlsen)
there have been now six serious attempts to find
the best advantage for White in chess,
1)
Chessbase
besides statistics (1.Nf3!) they have a 'live book' now for many years
https://en.chessbase.com/post/livebook- ... ing-oracle
(uhm forgot to mention this above coz they never bothered
to 'backsolve' the stuff, knowing ofcourse that such is very
dependent on the engine eval and nowadays they show
engine evals for different engines (apparently it never got
in F Friedels mind or so to combine an average engine eval
with statistics (incl corresp and engine games) and then
backsolve the whole lot, but guess what the result is draw
(tip from me: include 'sharpness' to make a repertoire ;
see the PS3 below

2) Arshah
now defunct, but here's still an old glimp
https://chessacademy.am/static/article/32?lang=en
https://about.me/arshah
and it was on FB
https://www.facebook.com/ArShah-Chess-A ... 037964114/
they found chess is a draw, whether you play d4 or e4

3) zipproth (no clarification needed for the geeks)
brainfisch etc. , the Cerebellum book

4) chessdb.cn
only displaying xiangchi chess now again
(they found chess is a draw)

5) Larry Kaufman (Komodo, chess advantage new repertoire etc );
with all respect, but with Dragon LK but you now may have to update
your repertoire again, (and then again ad infinitum ?) Lol
Anyway LK with all respect is senior GM and confirms White
cannot win, considering the drawing margins etc
hey ask him, he's still on this forum , you know
As is still old dr Bob and as far as i know he's one of
the rare chess geeks (besides late ex corresp world chamo
Hans Berliner) who thinks (or thought) that White might win

6) yours truly
www.superchess.blogspot.com
the BB download doesnt work anymore, i may
update this soon but it's only a small book, my personal
book was quite big (20 million positions or so) and
clearly indicated White cannot win.
Ergo (as the topic of this thread, ofcourse White
avoid a loss, ergo White can draw, obviously

As physicist, i prefer the Copernican model above
the Ptolemaeus model, and we're not the center
of the universe. And White cannot win in chess.
If you need a more stringent math proof for that,
is a philosophical question (there's no need for
brute force calcs as 32 tb or so for that imho)

Conclusion, from 1-6 proof ? as the English
say, the proof is in the pudding.



PS with transpositions the nr of moves in chess becomes less
than (some) people think; and when we discount positions with
score < 4 or so (tactical mistakes) then such a tree becomes even smaller
and strongly hints to the conjecture that white cannot win ergo chess = draw
PS2 ever heard of 'game theory' Repeating myself, but here is Zermelo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%2 ... me_theory)
If there is no winning strategy for White, than the game is a draw.
(some math freaks or slightly brain damaged Trump supporters
may for trillions more generations may dispute this, but then i'm sure
some Nash type of guy will stand up (eg using network theory) and
may write a paper to show that there's no strategic advantage
in chess (or some similar) games to get a White advantage ergo *draw*
(hey, maybe i will write such a paper, while i'm still alive;
not that some chess nuts will then ever cite that if they think
White can win with 1.b3 best by (their) test(s) or whatever
PS3 chess indeed is a (to a large extent) a tactical game, depending on
your opponent you may like to go for sharp or positional lines;
maybe the multi-pv option with Kom-mcts (or simply) Stockfish can
indicate (with the eval differences between 1,2,3rd lines can
indicate 'sharpness' of a position. What i would like to see as
human player, is a database not only with eval (and backsolving)
but also the option of sharpness to 'backsolve' a repertoire
from that. Some nice work for the programmers

[mmt]

I suggest first to try to solve some easier problems.

[d]rnb1kbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

Can we prove with the hardware of today that white does not lose and if yes then what is the distance to mate or repetition.

Yes, it would be good to try such positions since we have no draw searchers. What I proposed in #1 is not all that much harder and it would be interesting to find out what percentage of such positions is drawn or won by white.

what about the following position

[d]4k1n1/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQ - 0 1

How many nodes do engines need to search to see a forced mate and how many nodes they need to search to see at least a forced draw for white?

I once solved a little harder position (with a rook for black) and it took a while but it found a mate. I ran positions with a queen or two rooks for black for pretty long and it couldn't find a mate.

[Dann Corbit]

how close are we to prove the earth is not flat ?

this thread almost looks like a joke to me;
happy Friday 13th anyway

In the game chess (besides GM's from Steinitz to Carlsen)
there have been now six serious attempts to find
the best advantage for White in chess,
1)
Chessbase
besides statistics (1.Nf3!) they have a 'live book' now for many years
https://en.chessbase.com/post/livebook- ... ing-oracle
(uhm forgot to mention this above coz they never bothered
to 'backsolve' the stuff, knowing ofcourse that such is very
dependent on the engine eval and nowadays they show
engine evals for different engines (apparently it never got
in F Friedels mind or so to combine an average engine eval
with statistics (incl corresp and engine games) and then
backsolve the whole lot, but guess what the result is draw
(tip from me: include 'sharpness' to make a repertoire ;
see the PS3 below

2) Arshah
now defunct, but here's still an old glimp
https://chessacademy.am/static/article/32?lang=en
https://about.me/arshah
and it was on FB
https://www.facebook.com/ArShah-Chess-A ... 037964114/
they found chess is a draw, whether you play d4 or e4

3) zipproth (no clarification needed for the geeks)
brainfisch etc. , the Cerebellum book

4) chessdb.cn
only displaying xiangchi chess now again
(they found chess is a draw)

5) Larry Kaufman (Komodo, chess advantage new repertoire etc );
with all respect, but with Dragon LK but you now may have to update
your repertoire again, (and then again ad infinitum ?) Lol
Anyway LK with all respect is senior GM and confirms White
cannot win, considering the drawing margins etc
hey ask him, he's still on this forum , you know
As is still old dr Bob and as far as i know he's one of
the rare chess geeks (besides late ex corresp world chamo
Hans Berliner) who thinks (or thought) that White might win

6) yours truly
www.superchess.blogspot.com
the BB download doesnt work anymore, i may
update this soon but it's only a small book, my personal
book was quite big (20 million positions or so) and
clearly indicated White cannot win.
Ergo (as the topic of this thread, ofcourse White
avoid a loss, ergo White can draw, obviously

As physicist, i prefer the Copernican model above
the Ptolemaeus model, and we're not the center
of the universe. And White cannot win in chess.
If you need a more stringent math proof for that,
is a philosophical question (there's no need for
brute force calcs as 32 tb or so for that imho)

Conclusion, from 1-6 proof ? as the English
say, the proof is in the pudding.



PS with transpositions the nr of moves in chess becomes less
than (some) people think; and when we discount positions with
score < 4 or so (tactical mistakes) then such a tree becomes even smaller
and strongly hints to the conjecture that white cannot win ergo chess = draw
PS2 ever heard of 'game theory' Repeating myself, but here is Zermelo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zermelo%2 ... me_theory)
If there is no winning strategy for White, than the game is a draw.
(some math freaks or slightly brain damaged Trump supporters
may for trillions more generations may dispute this, but then i'm sure
some Nash type of guy will stand up (eg using network theory) and
may write a paper to show that there's no strategic advantage
in chess (or some similar) games to get a White advantage ergo *draw*
(hey, maybe i will write such a paper, while i'm still alive;
not that some chess nuts will then ever cite that if they think
White can win with 1.b3 best by (their) test(s) or whatever
PS3 chess indeed is a (to a large extent) a tactical game, depending on
your opponent you may like to go for sharp or positional lines;
maybe the multi-pv option with Kom-mcts (or simply) Stockfish can
indicate (with the eval differences between 1,2,3rd lines can
indicate 'sharpness' of a position. What i would like to see as
human player, is a database not only with eval (and backsolving)
but also the option of sharpness to 'backsolve' a repertoire
from that. Some nice work for the programmers

An opinion, even a good one, is not a proof.
"If there is no winning strategy for White, than the game is a draw." is indeed a tautology.
You have yet to supply the "if" part.

I used to grade papers for 1,200 calculus students when I was a TA at the University of Washington.
When someone wrote a proof and the conclusion did not follow from the results, I would put D.N.F. under their conclusion.
(Does Not Follow)

Here is what this thread and your narrative have demonstrated:
Lots of people think chess is probably a draw (including me).
That has nothing to do with the meaning of the word "proof".

[jefk]

DC,
why cite my whole message, while you only comment
on a part of it; but ok, good point, your suggestion about the 'if'
part (if White does not have a winning strategy etc)

So i'll think about it, meanwhile, reverse reasoning,
if White would have a winning strategy, we would see it
already from the opening stage (which nowadays extends
to middle game and sometimes endgame).
As i said, the proof is in the pudding; which is an English
saying i thought, maybe not well known in yankeetown.
In physics we deal with certainties, (in)accuracies, statistics, etc
not proofs (as i said i don't have to prove the earth is not flat).
Ever heard of Popper (falsification, etc).
If you want to falsify the known experimental fact that chess
is a draw, than you have to show it's a win; for White; good luck.
(Some here try to show that 1.g4 is a loss, ok an interesting effort)
But any attempt to show White can win, can be falsified.
(Eureka) QED
When i was student assistant in experimental physics
and a student clearly didn't understand the concept
of measurement ranges/inaccuracies (eg. 2.0 +/- 0.4) i
suggested he should study a bit more.
PS Later i got a comment from a supervisor in that
experimental (1st year) physics class that my educational
skills could be (ergo have been) better. Ah well, i never
became
a professor anyway. As for (computer) chess, well we are
not really known to be such nice guys anyway, aren't we.
So let's call it a day (or a draw). tic tac toe is a draw,
you know, so is chess; you have to live with that i guess;
as for a 'proof' of the conjecture, well I'll be back

hint(s) 1) if white cannot lose it's at least a draw.
a thought experiment (of a complex game):
If in a soccer game the goal of your team is sealed/shutoff
you cannot lose, simple as that.
2) it the goal of the other team is sealed/shutoff as well,
you cannot win; simple as that.
3) but then it's a draw
huh
This was a thought experiment; something done sometimes in
physics (ever heard of old uncle Albert, he used to do that theyseigh).
you know what, i leave the real proof for the math professors
in a next generation, coz some blokes may always find a conceptual
hole in my 'proof'. Which doesn't mean that chess is not a draw.
If you cannot prove the earth is not flat it doesn't mean it's flat, sigh
PS2 for the rest (only main math thing if you wish) i suggest is that for
a proof in chess we don't need a brute force calc as 32 tb; there
may be other methods from game theory.
PS3 but ok, if you want to be right than Dan you're right
no big deal (so you're happy now i guess) you know there
are some (in fact many) conjectures in math which are well
accepted and assumed as (utterly) true (ergo evident) in
the community of math pro's (or geeks or whatever) btw;
now go out and mail/ tell them that they should not accept
that until all these conjectures are 'proven' ! i'm sure
they would be glad to here from them (also cite all
there statements where they suggest that a conjecture is
true because by definition it cannot be true because it's
only a conjecture (*); yes that is a tautology isn't it.
good luck
(*) sometimes there's a thin line between a conjecture and
a proof. At first they found holes in Andrew Wiles proof of the
last theorem of Fermat btw; but apparently then later he fixed it.
Maybe you still can find a hole; good luck again.
oh and don't suggest you can solve that theorem by brute force;
it may take a while cq some computer time (and lot's of watts;
not a good idea in our times of climate change etc. (if there's
no proof that Co2 is causing global warming than this doesn't
mean it doesn't. Bottomline, i do know about the philosophy of science,
but i'm not into a dispute in philosophy of math and what should and
should not be the meaning of 'proof'. Chess is a physical
happening when played on a board with wooden pieces. Ergo
for me it's physics. And i use the concept of physics; and in such
a discourse, i'm well allowed to suggest it's a draw.
Math is only a mental exercise, it has not meaning in real life.
Not even existence, as far as i'm (when thinking in Aristotelian way)
concerned; if your Platonian, well that's your opinion.
see what i'm saying; or should i continue (yes i like writing) so
ok until next time; oh and please cite my whole messie again
next time, i sure would like to see it again (and again, and again
lol just dreaming now it's late.

[jefk]

and we could go beyond Popper, then it's just
a matter of a paradigm (Thomas Kuhn).
The six experiments i mentioned shown that
chess is a draw. Now it's only a matter of acceptance
of such a paradigm. Or non-acceptance, then you
have to show that White can win.
Good luck again.
Ergo unless someone can show White can win,
then chess is a draw.
And this is not simply my opinion btw.
(for me, considering the expanding degrees of freedom
in chess, ie the nr of options Black always has after
a White move (unless in the game of 4inarow where
the nr of options are decreasing), and the rules
of chess (3 position repetition, stalemate) and the
large drawing margins (eg when opposite bishops)
it's almost evident that White cannot win.
For those who disagree i suggest a few more (real)
chess lessons instead of staring at a computer screen
with many fishes and so on (ever heard of Aquarium)
lol
good night
may the force be with you,
and the united states of america
and other countries in this world

[Dann Corbit]

OK, I quote nothing.
Here is a much simpler example, trillions of time simpler than the game of chess.
Simply prove that this position is a draw, which I am entirely convinced is a draw:
[d]r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2n2n2/2pp4/3P1B2/2P1P3/PP1N1PPP/R2QKBNR b KQkq -

I have a search running on this position:

Code: Select all

Searching: r1bqkb1r/pp2pppp/2n2n2/2pp4/3P1B2/2P1P3/PP1N1PPP/R2QKBNR b KQkq - 0 1
infinite: 0 time: 0 increment: 0 moves to go: 0

 1   +0.09   00:00   72842  Qb6 
 2   -0.09   00:00  132177  Bf5 Qb3 
 3   -0.14   00:00  160288  Bf5 Qb3 Qc8 
 4   +0.06   00:00  186906  e6 Ngf3 Bd6 
 5   -0.02   00:00  213943  e6 Bb5 Bd6 Ngf3 
 6   -0.13   00:00  241850  e6 Ngf3 Be7 dxc5 Bxc5 Bb5 O-O O-O Bd6 
 7   -0.06   00:00  300225  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 Nh4 Bg4 Qb3 e6 
 8   -0.17   00:00  382588  e6 Ngf3 Be7 Be2 O-O O-O Nh5 Bg5 Bxg5 
 9   -0.09   00:00  473924  e6 Ngf3 Be7 Bb5 O-O O-O Nh5 Bxc6 
10   -0.06   00:00  582272  e6 Ngf3 Be7 dxc5 Bxc5 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O c4 h6 cxd5 Nxd5 
11   -0.29   00:00  815855  e6 Ngf3 Be7 h3 O-O Be2 h6 O-O c4 b3 cxb3 
12   -0.13   00:00   1047K  e6 Ngf3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bb5 cxd4 exd4 O-O O-O Bd7 Re1 Qf4 a4 Rac8 
13   -0.05   00:00   1260K  e6 Ngf3 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Bb5 O-O O-O h6 dxc5 Qxc5 Bxc6 bxc6 
14   +0.13   00:00   2869K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 Nh4 Bd7 b3 Rc8 Nhf3 e6 a4 h6 Ne5 cxd4 Nxd7 
15   -0.13   00:00   4282K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 Nh4 Bd7 Qb3 Qxb3 axb3 Nh5 Bg3 cxd4 exd4 f6 Nhf3 Nxg3 hxg3 
16   -0.14   00:00   6340K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 Nh4 Bd7 Qb3 Qxb3 axb3 Nh5 dxc5 e5 Bg3 Bxc5 b4 Nxg3 hxg3 Bd6 e4 
17   -0.13   00:00   7398K  Bf5 Ngf3 e6 Bb5 Qb6 Qa4 Nd7 Ne5 Ndxe5 Bxe5 f6 Bg3 cxd4 cxd4 Be7 Rc1 Rc8 O-O O-O Nb3 a6 
18   -0.02   00:00   9460K  Bf5 Ngf3 e6 Be2 Bd6 dxc5 Bxc5 O-O O-O c4 Rc8 cxd5 exd5 Rc1 Bd6 Bxd6 Qxd6 Qa4 
19   -0.00   00:00  13032K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 b4 cxb4 c4 dxc4 Nxc4 Qd8 Nce5 Qa5 Nxc6 bxc6 Qc1 Qb6 Ne5 e6 Nc4 Qb7 Na5 Qb6 
20   -0.13   00:00  25915K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 Bxc5 Rxb7 fxe3+ fxe3 O-O-O Rb1 Bb6 Ba6+ Kc7 Nxd7 
21   +0.05   00:00  27998K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 e5 Nxf5 exf4 Rb1 Qxc3 Rxb7 Bxc5 Rc7 fxe3 fxe3 Bxe3 Be2 Bxd2+ Qxd2 Qxd2+ Kxd2 Ne4+ Ke3 
22   +0.06   00:00  32940K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 Rb1 Qxc3 Nb5 Qa5 Bc7 Bxd1 Bxa5 Rc8 Nxa7 Nxa7 Kxd1 Nc6 Bc3 e6 Rb5 Be7 h4 O-O Bd3 
23   +0.00   00:00  40125K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 fxg4 exf4 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
24   -0.00   00:00  43839K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 fxg4 exf4 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
25   -0.00   00:00  51070K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 fxg4 exf4 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
26   -0.00   00:01  54482K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Bg3 Be6 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
27   -0.00   00:01  65033K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxc1+ Rxc1 Bd7 Nxe4 dxe4 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3 fxe3 Bxc5 Rxb7 Ba4 Bc4 f6 Nf7 O-O Nh6+ Kh8 Nf7+ 
28   -0.00   00:01  65594K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rc1 Qxa2 Bg5 Be6 Ra1 Qb2 Rc1 
29   -0.00   00:01  68347K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rc1 Qa2 
30   -0.00   00:01  71886K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Bg5 Be6 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rc1 Qa2 
31   -0.00   00:01  81886K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
32   -0.00   00:01  93036K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Bg3 Bd7 Rb1 Qxa2 e4 a6 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
33   -0.00   00:01 102724K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Bg3 Bf5 e4 Be6 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 exd5 Bxd5 Rc1 Qa2 c4 Be6 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 Qa2 Ra1 
34   -0.00   00:01 114538K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rc1 Qa2 Bg5 Be6 Ra1 Qb2 Rc1 
35   -0.00   00:04 250817K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Bg5 Be6 a4 a6 Rb1 Qa2 Ra1 Qb2 
36   -0.00   00:04 257621K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Bg5 a6 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
37   -0.00   00:06 375279K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxc1+ Rxc1 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 c4 dxc4 Bxc4 Rd8 Bc7 Rc8 Bg3 g6 Rb1 Bg7 Bb5 Rd8 Bc7 Rc8 Bg3 
38   +0.05   00:07 458181K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 Nxd7 Kxd7 cxb6 axb6 Bb5+ Ke6 a4 Bc5 Ke2 Rhc8 Rhd1 Bd6 Rbc1 g6 Kf3 Rc5 c4 dxc4 Rxc4 Rxc4 Bxc4+ Ke7 Bb5 Rc8 g3 Rd8 Rd2 Be5 
39   -0.00   00:08 517516K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
40   +0.00   00:10 633160K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Bg5 a6 Rb1 Qa2 Ra1 
41   +0.00   00:11 730951K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
42   +0.00   00:13 823167K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
43   -0.00   00:13 854248K  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
44   -0.00   00:20   1254M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Bg4 f3 e5 Nb5 Rc8 Rb1 Qxa2 Ra1 Qb2 Rb1 
45   +0.00   00:20   1284M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
46   +0.00   00:24   1555M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
47   -0.00   00:44   2775M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 e5 Bxe5 Nxe5 Nxf5 Bxc5 Nxg7+ Kf8 Nh5 Nxh5 Rb1 Qxc3 Rb3 Qa5 Qxh5 Re8 Be2 b6 Qh6+ Kg8 Qg5+ Kf8 
48   +0.00   00:44   2809M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxc1+ Rxc1 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
49   +0.00   00:56   3511M  Bf5 Ngf3 e6 Bb5 Qb6 Qa4 Rc8 Ne5 a6 Bxc6+ bxc6 O-O h6 Qb3 Qa7 Qa4 
50   +0.00   01:00   3781M  Bf5 Ngf3 e6 Bb5 Qb6 Qa4 Rc8 Ne5 a6 Bxc6+ bxc6 O-O h6 Qb3 Qa7 Qa4 Qb7 Qb3 
51   +0.00   01:26   5362M  Bf5 Ngf3 e6 Qa4 Qb6 Bb5 Rc8 Ne5 a6 Bxc6+ bxc6 O-O h6 Qb3 Qa7 Qa4 
52   +0.00   01:32   5669M  Bf5 Ngf3 e6 Qa4 Nd7 Qb3 Na5 Qa4 
53   -0.00   01:50   6757M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxc1+ Rxc1 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
54   -0.00   02:04   7620M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxc1+ Rxc1 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
55   -0.00   02:10   7987M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxc1+ Rxc1 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
56   +0.00   02:23   8813M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
57   +0.00   02:37   9708M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxc1+ Rxc1 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
58   +0.00   03:17  12197M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
59   +0.00   03:31  13131M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
60   +0.00   04:11  15585M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 
61   +0.00   04:41  17448M  Bf5 Ngf3 Qb6 dxc5 Qxb2 Nd4 Ne4 Qc1 Qxd2+ Qxd2 Nxd2 Kxd2 Bd7 Rb1 e5 Nxc6 exf4 Ne5 fxe3+ fxe3 b6 cxb6 axb6 Rxb6 f6 Nxd7 Rxa2+ Kd3 Kxd7 Rb8 Kc7 Re8 Kd7 

I am using 62 threads, with full 6 man files and almost all of the important 7 man EGTB files.

It looks like it is drawn. I believe it is drawn.
Prove that this one position is drawn.