The 600 most interesting positions in the world, part 1

[Dann Corbit]

The set of positions could form a kind of test for the most human engine (or least computer-like). I'd very much like to see how reputedly human engines fare - Rybka Human, HIARCS, and Komodo.

Another thing worthy of note is that some of the disagreements between human and computer do not arise until a very deep search has been performed.

A classic example of this is the opening position of chess. The pedagogic answer is "1.e4" but the computer analysis answer is "1.d4" currently.

Both topalov and anand played 1.d4 in their first game of the match so I guess that 1.d4 is better than 1.e4 and if computers suggest 1.d4 then probably d4 is better.

Uri

Well, it is an open question of sorts, but I think an interesting one.

[Dann Corbit]

I think mostly this is just showing you that computer evals, even of very good engines, are not very helpful in the opening. Some popular openings are analyzed right into the endgame, which even a very good engine is not going to be able to do. So I would not conclude that the human moves are sub-optimal, or that the computer moves are better (or vice-versa). But it is also true that novelties keep getting found (or rediscovered) and played, even in the early opening. Some of these are at least reasonable tries, and conventional wisdom about the best lines can be wrong - so it's quite possible the computer has in some cases "discovered" something that is worth considering.

--Jon

And yet the engines get over 90% correct for opening positions at the same time controls, so the ones that get missed have something interesting about them.

[Dann Corbit]

Here are half of them, which I describe as "the 300 Spartans, by day":
http://cap.connx.com/EPD/300d.epd.bz2

Now, if you download those positions, you are going to object.
"Those positions are not interesting at all! In fact, they are all well known opening positions with well established theory. Those are probably among the most boring positions in the world!"

But now, for my claim:
I have spent a good deal of time with computer analysis of the most commonly played positions. For those positions reached at least 1000 times in real games in my "database of high quality games" I have 17,435 positions where the analysis by computer agrees completely with the move chosen by opening books, human experts, etc. But I also have about 600 positions where the computer analysis and the human analysis simply do not agree, after a search of at least 26 plies.

For most of these positions, the popular choice is probably the correct choice, but the computer analysis simply has not found it yet. So my search goes like this:
Analyse the positions in a batch and reprocess them. For all of those still not solved, simply double the time and do it again. Currently, I am at one hour per position (though some of the positions have been analyzed at much longer time scale).

So, why are these positions interesting?
1. I guess that for 1% of the puzzle positions, there are real novelties found by the computer analysis. For these positions, we may have a trap to spring on our opponent.
2. For the other positions, it seems that computers do not understand the positions properly. So it seems likely that when we fall out of book, the computer may not know what to do if the book lines are not deep enough.
3. Though the positions seem simple, there must be more than meets the eye, since a very deep computer analysis does not see the simple solution.
4. These positions come up all the time in games. So you as a human are going to play them if you play chess. If you are a chess engine author, your chess engine is going to play them frequenly also.
5. Why is this 6% different than the other 93% that the computer programs can solve easily?

OK, OK, time to qualify my subject string:
The 600 most interesting positions in the world, part 1 {to me anyway}.

Here is a sample position:
[d]r1bqkb1r/pppp1ppp/2n2n2/4p3/2P5/2N2N2/PP1PPPPP/R1BQKB1R w KQkq - acd 34; ce 0; pv e4 Bb4 d3 d6 Be2 O-O O-O Bg4 Bg5 h6 Be3 Bc5 Nd5 Nd7 Nd2 Bxe2 Qxe2 Nd4 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nf3 c6 Ne3 Bxe3 fxe3 a5 g3 Nc5 Nh4 g6 Rf2 Qe7 Raf1 a4 Qd2 Kh7 Qe2 Kg8; bm e4; pm g3 {23077} e3 {4077} a3 {1324} d4 {829} d3 {745} e4 {591} Qc2 {224} Qa4 {102} b3 {95}; id "300SpartansDaytime.300";

Here is a discussing of the non-position components:

acd 34;
Depth of analysis was 34 plies (analysis engine will be a top level engine such as Rybka 3 or Stockfish 1.71)

ce 0;
Computer score was 0 centipawns

pv e4 Bb4 d3 d6 Be2 O-O O-O Bg4 Bg5 h6 Be3 Bc5 Nd5 Nd7 Nd2 Bxe2 Qxe2 Nd4 Bxd4 Bxd4 Nf3 c6 Ne3 Bxe3 fxe3 a5 g3 Nc5 Nh4 g6 Rf2 Qe7 Raf1 a4 Qd2 Kh7 Qe2 Kg8;
The computer's best guess at a plan is shown in the above trajectory.

bm e4;
The computer's key move choice was e4

pm g3 {23077} e3 {4077} a3 {1324} d4 {829} d3 {745} e4 {591} Qc2 {224} Qa4 {102} b3 {95};
For this position, from my database of high quailty games, the list of possible predicted moves is found above. The number of times the move occured in actual games is listed beside the move choice in curly-brace comments. Move choices that occurred less than 10 times are not included in the list. The dominatingly most popular move for this position is g3 (NOT the computer choice of e4) which occurred 23,077 times in actual games in the database. The move e4 happend only 591 times in the database. The database has been carefully filtered so that only top level GMs, correspondence players, and engines are contained in it.

id "300SpartansDaytime.300";
This is the tag to uniquely identify the position.

I did solve one additional problem from the first set so that bm and most popular pm now agree:
[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppp1p/6p1/8/8/6P1/PPPPPP1P/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - acd 33; ce 8; pv Bg2 Bg7 Nf3 e5 O-O Ne7 c4 Nbc6 Nc3 O-O d3 d6 Bd2 Bg4 Nd5 Nxd5 cxd5 Ne7 h3 Bd7 Qb3 c6 dxc6 Nxc6 Rfc1 Rb8 e4 Be6 Qa3 Ra8 Be3 f6 d4 d5 exd5 Bxd5 dxe5 fxe5; bm Bg2; pm Bg2 {4449} c4 {165} Nf3 {92} d4 {65}; id "300SpartansDaytime.006";

[swami]

Interesting set of positions. Thanks, Dann.

Have you looked into Kubbel's endgame positions? I heard it's bit harder for humans. Don't know how engines do, I haven't even seen the positions but I did google about it.

[Dann Corbit]

Interesting set of positions. Thanks, Dann.

Have you looked into Kubbel's endgame positions? I heard it's bit harder for humans. Don't know how engines do, I haven't even seen the positions but I did google about it.

Not yet. I want to get substantial progress on this idea.

[Dann Corbit]

... Whichone are the best answers against 1. e4 and against 1.e4. d4 ?

Thanks in adavance ...

I guess that you mean 1.e4 d5
Is that right?

[govert]

Interesting set of positions. Thanks, Dann.

Have you looked into Kubbel's endgame positions? I heard it's bit harder for humans. Don't know how engines do, I haven't even seen the positions but I did google about it.

Not yet. I want to get substantial progress on this idea.

How do you suggest we continue?

[Dann Corbit]

Interesting set of positions. Thanks, Dann.

Have you looked into Kubbel's endgame positions? I heard it's bit harder for humans. Don't know how engines do, I haven't even seen the positions but I did google about it.

Not yet. I want to get substantial progress on this idea.

How do you suggest we continue?

My outline is as follows:
For all problems where the move chosen by the best chess engines does not agree with the move chosen by experts, keep doubling the time until the solution is found or a novelty of some sort is clearly identified.

If people are interested in helping, I can give access to the live data (it is stored in SQL*Server) and work out a plan for cooperation.

[Dann Corbit]

... Whichone are the best answers against 1. e4 and against 1.e4. d4 ?

Thanks in adavance ...

I guess that you mean 1.e4 d5
Is that right?

This position agrees with conventional wisdom, with the pawn exchange:
[d]rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p4/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - acd 34; ce 60; pv exd5 Qxd5 Nc3 Qd6 Nf3 Nf6 d4 a6 Bd3 Nc6 O-O Bg4 Ne4 Nxe4 Bxe4 O-O-O c3 f5 Bxc6 Qxc6 Ne5 Bxd1 Nxc6 bxc6 Rxd1 Kd7 Re1 e6 g3 Be7 Kg2 a5 Bf4 Ra8 Rad1 Bd6 Bg5 Rhb8 b3 h6 Bd2; bm exd5; pm exd5 {5010} Nc3 {98} d4 {87} e5 {36};

The computer suggested move of e6 is behind the more popular moves c5 and e5:
[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/4P3/8/PPPP1PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - acd 33; ce -12; pv e6 Nc3 d5 exd5 exd5 Nf3 Nf6; bm e6; pm c5 {273124} e5 {135354} e6 {55704} c6 {47941} d6 {9023} g6 {6891} d5 {5252} Nf6 {4921} Nc6 {1629} b6 {372} a6 {54} a5 {26} h6 {22} g5 {20} b5 {17} f5 {17} Na6 {13} h5 {11};

Several very strong engines have suggested e6, usually starting around ply 25 and then holding.

[govert]

Interesting set of positions. Thanks, Dann.

Have you looked into Kubbel's endgame positions? I heard it's bit harder for humans. Don't know how engines do, I haven't even seen the positions but I did google about it.

Not yet. I want to get substantial progress on this idea.

How do you suggest we continue?

My outline is as follows:
For all problems where the move chosen by the best chess engines does not agree with the move chosen by experts, keep doubling the time until the solution is found or a novelty of some sort is clearly identified.

If people are interested in helping, I can give access to the live data (it is stored in SQL*Server) and work out a plan for cooperation.

Sure, i'm in. I don't have a particularly strong computer, but maybe something would come out of it.
I'm particularly interested in positions which relate to my opening rep, which leads me to a second question:
Is it possible to classify these positions according to opening (ECO or similar)?