Stockfish Natural TB loses heavily to Stockfish master

[Ferdy]

Did Marco rip off DTZ from the probing?

Yes, he did. And he will probably commit it.

So serious users will have to look for alternatives.

In his words "The reason why DTZ are ripped out it is because they proved to be totally useless in real games". Anything else is an illusion (his words).

Just curious have you tried implementing the 6-men WDL alone (No DTZ) into Stockfish? If so what is its score or rating difference against WDL + DTZ?

One of the challenges to programmers is how to make full use WDL alone into the engine, considering the fact that WDL already contains informations of win, loss and draw.

[Ferdy]

Did Marco rip off DTZ from the probing?

Yes, he did. And he will probably commit it.

So serious users will have to look for alternatives.

In his words "The reason why DTZ are ripped out it is because they proved to be totally useless in real games". Anything else is an illusion (his words).

??
Seriously, he said that?
He never saw WDL bases, and all algorithmic attempts to make them work? The behavior of this SF NTB2 is very similar to that of old WDL EGBBs, they improve the strength just a little bit even in very sensitive endgames.

I continued SF NTB2 vesrus SF NO TB to 2000 games from this very sensitive suite, and finally got a decisive result

+300 -222 =1478 for SF NTB2 against SF NO TB
+14 ELO points
LOS=99.97%

Compare that to +76 ELO of master Syzygy on this suite.

The funniest thing is that these Natural TB2s miss the win at the root. From my Hard 6-men wins suite, in 100 games:

Code: Select all

Games Completed = 100 of 100 (Avg game length = 25.580 sec)
Settings = RR/32MB/15000ms+150ms/M 1000000cp for 1000 moves, D 200000 moves/EPD:C:\LittleBlitzer\Hard6men.epd(359)
Time = 358 sec elapsed, 0 sec remaining
 1.  Stockfish 020917 64 BMI2 Syzygy Master 	69.0/100	50-12-38  	(L: m=12 t=0 i=0 a=0)	(D: r=14 i=4 f=18 s=2 a=0)	(tpm=228.2 d=19.44 nps=1068208)
 2.  Stockfish 020917 64 BMI2 NTB2             31.0/100	12-50-38  	(L: m=50 t=0 i=0 a=0)	(D: r=14 i=4 f=18 s=2 a=0)	(tpm=426.9 d=30.33 nps=1690359)

Enabled with Syzygy 6-men from SSD, SF NTB2 missed 38 out of 50 hard 6-men wins at the root. Master Syzygy never miss any TB win at the root.

How about running the 100 match again but increase the TC (say 120000s + 150ms), the goal is to see if NaturalTB can improve by having more time.
I don't have 6-men sy, so I cannot test this myself at the moment.

Correction:
From:

TC (say 120000s + 150ms)

To:

TC (say 120000ms + 150ms)

[Laskos]

Ronald: Yes, the result is inconclusive, and the change, as I understand, was cosmetical. It does bring some decrease in depth of 0.2 plies, probably statistically significant (2 standard deviations would be something like 3 or 4 over sqrt(2000) ~ 0.1 ply), but I don't know if depth here means something.

Ferdy: after waking up at 5 in the morning, I too wanted too see the scaling with time control, before I saw your post. Also, I started to suspect that NTB2 will fail to solve even some hard 5-men positions, if it fails with 6-men. Yes, it fails to solve at 15''+ 0.15'' time control most of the hard 5-men wins against Master Syzygy. I now used Cutechess-Cli, because I already collected in LittleBlitzer all relevant stats like time used, nps, depth and the time losses.

100 games
Suite: Hard 5-men White wins
TC: 15''+ 0.15'':

Score of SF Master vs SF NTB2: 50 - 4 - 46 [0.730] 100
ELO difference: 172.78 +/- 49.99
Finished match

Here is the PGN of these 100 games
http://s000.tinyupload.com/?file_id=913 ... 3466545204
Please check the PGN, the performance of SF NTB2 is so atrocious, that I even started to suspect I have something broken (either compiles, or TBs). I remember Scorpio WDL egbb's in Houdini some 5 years ago performing better than that.

SF NTB2 failed to solve 46 out of 50 of hard 5-men wins.

Here are these 46 positions:

Code: Select all

1B4B1/1n6/8/8/k7/6K1/8/8 w - -
1B6/8/5K2/3B4/8/8/2k5/5n2 w - -
1K4B1/8/6n1/8/7B/8/1k6/8 w - -
2K5/3B4/8/6B1/8/8/2n5/1k6 w - -
2K5/8/3B4/k7/6n1/8/2B5/8 w - -
3BK3/8/8/5B2/8/5k2/8/n7 w - -
3N4/8/7k/8/2K5/1B6/8/n7 w - -
3k2B1/3n4/8/8/4K3/8/8/4B3 w - -
3k4/8/1n6/7K/8/2B5/B7/8 w - -
3k4/8/8/8/2K2n2/B6B/8/8 w - -
4B3/6n1/8/8/1K5k/8/8/6B1 w - -
4k3/8/8/8/8/2B5/2K4n/1B6 w - -
5n2/8/8/8/5K2/1B6/2N5/6k1 w - -
6BB/k7/1n6/6K1/8/8/8/8 w - -
6K1/5B2/8/5b2/8/8/6N1/3k4 w - -
6k1/8/B7/8/8/2K4n/7B/8 w - -
7B/8/8/1n6/8/8/k1B5/3K4 w - -
7k/8/8/n7/8/1B6/4K3/5N2 w - -
7n/6k1/8/8/8/B7/8/1K5B w - -
8/1k6/3K4/8/7P/8/4R3/2r5 w - -
8/1kB5/6K1/8/8/8/4n3/1B6 w - -
8/1n6/2k5/8/6B1/4BK2/8/8 w - -
8/1n6/8/8/7K/k7/8/1B2B3 w - -
8/3KB3/8/8/8/8/n1B5/6k1 w - -
8/3n4/8/8/8/2N5/2B5/4K2k w - -
8/6B1/4k3/1BK5/8/8/7n/8 w - -
8/6B1/8/8/8/N3K2n/8/2k5 w - -
8/7B/8/1n4K1/8/6B1/k7/8 w - -
8/8/1K6/8/1B6/8/2B5/5kn1 w - -
8/8/1k6/8/2B2n2/8/3K4/B7 w - -
8/8/2K5/8/3k1B2/8/8/n2B4 w - -
8/8/3n3K/8/8/5B2/5B2/1k6 w - -
8/8/8/2B1k3/8/8/8/1Bn1K3 w - -
8/8/8/4K3/1B6/8/1N5k/n7 w - -
8/8/8/5B2/5K2/1k6/8/n5B1 w - -
8/8/8/8/3K4/8/3k4/B2B3n w - -
8/B3k3/8/2K5/5b2/2N5/8/8 w - -
8/K5k1/8/5B2/8/n7/8/4N3 w - -
8/kB1n2K1/8/8/8/2B5/8/8 w - -
B7/8/1B1n4/K7/8/8/8/5k2 w - -
K7/3B4/8/7r/8/8/4k3/7N w - -
R7/1r6/7k/8/8/8/2PK4/8 w - -
k7/8/8/2K5/8/4B1N1/8/4n3 w - -
k7/8/8/7R/8/8/3r3P/7K w - -
k7/8/8/8/2N1K3/8/1B6/6n1 w - -
kn6/3B4/8/8/8/B4K2/8/8 w - -

Going to longer time control:

100 games
Suite: Hard 5-men White wins
TC: 60''+ 0.6'':

Score of SF Master vs SF NTB2: 51 - 14 - 35 [0.685] 100
ELO difference: 134.95 +/- 57.15
Finished match

There was one loss on time from SF NTB2.

NTB2 now fails to solve 35 out of 50 positions. Which is an improvement .

Here are these 35 positions:

Code: Select all

1B3k2/8/8/8/6n1/2K5/8/7B w - -
1B6/3K4/8/8/1k6/1B6/6n1/8 w - -
1K4B1/8/6n1/8/7B/8/1k6/8 w - -
1K6/8/8/2n5/8/8/1k6/3BB3 w - -
1k6/8/4B3/N7/3K4/8/7n/8 w - -
2B2n2/8/5Bk1/8/8/3K4/8/8 w - -
2k5/K6B/8/8/8/8/1n1B4/8 w - -
3B4/4K3/4B3/8/8/8/7k/5n2 w - -
3k2B1/3n4/8/8/4K3/8/8/4B3 w - -
4B3/6n1/8/8/1K5k/8/8/6B1 w - -
4B3/n7/8/5k2/8/4K3/3B4/8 w - -
5B2/5B2/k7/8/8/7K/2n5/8 w - -
5B2/8/6B1/6K1/8/8/4k3/n7 w - -
5B2/8/8/1k6/4B3/1n6/5K2/8 w - -
5K2/7B/1k6/8/8/8/1B4n1/8 w - -
5n2/8/8/7k/8/7B/8/2B3K1 w - -
5n2/8/B1K5/8/8/8/k5N1/8 w - -
6k1/n7/1N6/8/3K4/8/5B2/8 w - -
7B/5k2/7n/3K4/8/3B4/8/8 w - -
7B/8/8/1n6/8/8/k1B5/3K4 w - -
7k/8/8/8/7n/BB1K4/8/8 w - -
8/2B2n2/8/8/8/2K5/8/5Bk1 w - -
8/3B4/2K5/8/8/8/5k2/1nB5 w - -
8/3KB3/8/8/8/8/n1B5/6k1 w - -
8/8/1k6/4r3/8/8/5P2/2R4K w - -
8/8/2B3K1/2B5/8/3n4/k7/8 w - -
8/8/2k5/7B/2nBK3/8/8/8 w - -
8/8/2n1K3/B7/8/7B/8/2k5 w - -
8/8/3n1K2/BB6/8/5k2/8/8 w - -
8/8/8/3B4/8/5K1n/3N3k/8 w - -
8/8/8/6K1/8/8/1BB5/4k2n w - -
8/8/8/7B/K4B2/8/8/5kn1 w - -
8/B7/6k1/5n2/8/7K/8/5B2 w - -
B3K3/4B3/7n/8/8/8/8/6k1 w - -
k3Bn2/8/8/8/K7/4B3/8/8 w - -

And after I read Ferdy's post, I tested at 120''+ 1.2'', the result was

Score of SF Master vs SF NTB2: 50 - 23 - 27 [0.635] 100
ELO difference: 96.19 +/- 60.18
Finished match

SF NTB2 failed to solve now 27 out of 50 positions, which is again an improvement. But at this rate even SF No TB will improve with TC. If I am not doing something wrong, Marco would better abandon this whole "Natural TB" idea. If he doesn't like Master Syzygy (they are probably "Unnatural"), he would better go for no TBs at all.

[IQ]

I am very sorry to sound somewhat aggresive in this post, but I beleive these so called "naturalTB" are completely and utterly misguided. The whole concept is based the misconceptions of mostly (please forgive me) weaker players (<1900 Elo) and the highly subjective notion of "naturalness".

1) Contrary to the proponents of "naturalTB" it is considered good technique to trade down or give up material to reach known-winning endings, instead of playing for (sometimes very complicated) mate in X. There are countless GM examples that also to weaker players would look "unnatural", yet they are.

2) Proponents show their pet examples, and YES some of these are indeed somewhat unnatural, BUT they do not show or even know or even looked for all the examples that their NEW scheme will break in the process (see 1).

3) I would tolerate the change in STYLE of TB play (even though i find some of the examples rather unnatural, rather than natural), if there is no change in outcome of the game.

4) Now, it seems that Marcos latest dellusion will (even if only in one position in 10.000.000) not perform as well as Ronalds original code and thereby violating (3)

If Marcos new "natural TB" gets commited without an off switch, I just hope that enough branches will remain with the original code (or I branch it myself) as I want anaylsis to remain sound and not be subject to holes, just because Marco thinks it plays more "beautifully". I know he probably invested a lot of time and energy into rewriting the syzygy code and has become somehwat attached to his changes. But in his misguided pissing contest with Ronnald he has lost all objectivity. And even if the difference in playing strength is barely measurable in self-play, one test-position that the new code fails on is enough for me to reject his complete endevour.

[syzygy]

Did Marco rip off DTZ from the probing?

Yes, he did. And he will probably commit it.

So serious users will have to look for alternatives.

In his words "The reason why DTZ are ripped out it is because they proved to be totally useless in real games". Anything else is an illusion (his words).

Just curious have you tried implementing the 6-men WDL alone (No DTZ) into Stockfish? If so what is its score or rating difference against WDL + DTZ?

SF falls back to probing WDL tables at the root if DTZ tables are not available. It should work well enough in cases where the distances between winning zeroing moves (captures, pawn moves) on the path to mate can be bridged by the search. It won't do well on positions like KBBvKN. Kai has done tests in the past.

[syzygy]

Ronald: Yes, the result is inconclusive, and the change, as I understand, was cosmetical. It does bring some decrease in depth of 0.2 plies, probably statistically significant (2 standard deviations would be something like 3 or 4 over sqrt(2000) ~ 0.1 ply), but I don't know if depth here means something.

I would indeed expect a decrease in depth after TB win scores have been reached (so when the game has already been won or lost).

It might be too tricky to check whether this explains the decrease, but if you could manage, that would be interesting.

[Laskos]

Ronald: Yes, the result is inconclusive, and the change, as I understand, was cosmetical. It does bring some decrease in depth of 0.2 plies, probably statistically significant (2 standard deviations would be something like 3 or 4 over sqrt(2000) ~ 0.1 ply), but I don't know if depth here means something.

I would indeed expect a decrease in depth after TB win scores have been reached (so when the game has already been won or lost).

It might be too tricky to check whether this explains the decrease, but if you could manage, that would be interesting.

I made another run of 2000 games to reduce the error margins, the result now is almost completely equal:

Code: Select all

Games Completed = 2000 of 2000 (Avg game length = 35.522 sec)
Settings = RR/32MB/15000ms+150ms/M 1000000cp for 1000 moves, D 200000 moves/EPD:C:\LittleBlitzer\Disbalance2.epd(1079)
Time = 10343 sec elapsed, 0 sec remaining
 1.  Stockfish 030917 64 BMI2 Master    	1001.5/2000	451-448-1101  	(L: m=448 t=0 i=0 a=0)	(D: r=402 i=449 f=239 s=11 a=0)	(tpm=356.0 d=23.85 nps=2036086)
 2.  Stockfish 030917 64 BMI2 Easy_Mate2 	998.5/2000	448-451-1101  	(L: m=451 t=0 i=0 a=0)	(D: r=402 i=449 f=239 s=11 a=0)	(tpm=354.5 d=23.68 nps=2045109)

In 3 runs combined, 4000 games from this sensitive endgame suite, the Easy_Mate2 performs as -3 +/- 4 ELO points (pentanomial error margins), undecided. Even if the performance is indeed -3 ELO points here (highly doubtful), it will be from regular openings like 2moves_v1.epd some 5 times smaller, or -0.6 ELO points, hard to detect and irrelevant.

0.2 plies loss in depth here is consistent, that is much beyond error margins. If one was to judge just by the depth, a doubling at this time control is roughly 120 ELO points, a ply is roughly half-a-doubling, or 60 ELO points, and 0.20 plies about 12 ELO points. This is not observed, so loss in depth is compensated by other factors.

[syzygy]

[0.2 plies loss in depth here is consistent, that is much beyond error margins. If one was to judge just by the depth, a doubling at this time control is roughly 120 ELO points, a ply is roughly half-a-doubling, or 60 ELO points, and 0.20 plies about 12 ELO points. This is not observed, so loss in depth is compensated by other factors.

The loss of depth occurs where it does not matter anymore: once a TB win has been found.

If the score has reached the level of a TB win, SF-easy_mate starts to spend time on searching the TB win position in its tree to perhaps find mate. If it finds mate, that's great. If not, nothing is lost.

At least this is the theory

I suspect that if you compare average depth for moves with abs(score) < 138, then the difference disappears.

I could try this myself on the 10,000 games I collected, but I don't know of a good tool. But I might give it a try.

[Laskos]

[0.2 plies loss in depth here is consistent, that is much beyond error margins. If one was to judge just by the depth, a doubling at this time control is roughly 120 ELO points, a ply is roughly half-a-doubling, or 60 ELO points, and 0.20 plies about 12 ELO points. This is not observed, so loss in depth is compensated by other factors.

The loss of depth occurs where it does not matter anymore: once a TB win has been found.

If the score has reached the level of a TB win, SF-easy_mate starts to spend time on searching the TB win position in its tree to perhaps find mate. If it finds mate, that's great. If not, nothing is lost.

At least this is the theory

I suspect that if you compare average depth for moves with abs(score) < 138, then the difference disappears.

I could try this myself on the 10,000 games I collected, but I don't know of a good tool. But I might give it a try.

I left overnight a 4000 games match with adjudication condition: Win if the score is above 13000cp for 1 move (almost all, if not all such scores, are TB wins with Stockfish Syzygy). It confirms your theory, the depth difference is insignificant now (0.03 plies, well within error margins):

Code: Select all

Games Completed = 4000 of 4000 (Avg game length = 31.061 sec)
Settings = RR/32MB/15000ms+150ms/M 13000cp for 1 moves, D 200000 moves/EPD:C:\LittleBlitzer\Disbalance2.epd(1079)
Time = 18029 sec elapsed, 0 sec remaining
 1.  Stockfish 030917 64 BMI2 Master     	2005.5/4000	903-892-2205  	(L: m=0 t=0 i=0 a=892)	(D: r=785 i=842 f=546 s=32 a=0)	(tpm=394.9 d=20.93 nps=1999492)
 2.  Stockfish 030917 64 BMI2 Easy_Mate2 	1994.5/4000	892-903-2205  	(L: m=0 t=0 i=0 a=903)	(D: r=785 i=842 f=546 s=32 a=0)	(tpm=397.9 d=20.90 nps=1996020)

As this adjudication rule does not change the outcome of the games, because both engines (Master and Easy_Mate2) play perfectly after TB win was found, I combined all my 4 runs in 8000 games match, and the total result for Easy_Mate2 is -1.8 +/- 2.9 ELO points (pentanomial error margins), completely inconclusive even from this very sensitive endgame suite. Basically the patch is neutral Elo-wise, but will show some more or shorter mates, is that correct?

[Laskos]

As I understood, Marco has now another version of Natural TB, "Final Natural TB (FNTB)". It uses DTZ tables, and it is claimed they will not play weird moves often. If I understood, by using DTZ, they are meant to not fail to convert TB root positions.

Well, I tested right now with my Hard 5-men Wins and Hard 6-men Wins suites at 15''+ 0.15'' and 60''+ 0.6'' in 100 games each:

TC: 15''+ 0.15''
Suite: Hard 5-men Wins
Score of SF Master vs SF Final NTB: 50 - 48 - 2 [0.510] 100
ELO difference: 6.95 +/- 68.19
Finished match

SF FNTB fails to convert 2 out of 50 positions here.

TC: 15''+ 0.15''
Suite: Hard 6-men Wins
Score of SF Master vs SF Final NTB: 50 - 42 - 8 [0.540] 100
ELO difference: 27.85 +/- 66.22
Finished match

SF FNTB fails to convert 8 out of 50 positions here.


Now, to longer time control:

TC: 60''+ 06''
Suite: Hard 5-men Wins
Score of SF Master vs SF Final NTB: 50 - 50 - 0 [0.500] 100
ELO difference: 0.00 +/- 68.89
Finished match

SF FNTB converts all 50 positions here.

TC: 60''+ 06''
Suite: Hard 6-men Wins
Score of SF Master vs SF Final NTB: 50 - 39 - 11 [0.555] 100
ELO difference: 38.37 +/- 65.28
Finished match

SF FNTB fails to convert 11 out of 50 positions here.


All in all, much better performance than before of SF FNTB, and using WDL+DTZ, it might be called "Natural Imperfect Syzygy" and Master as "Unnatural Perfect Syzygy". Maybe a question of taste, but as I often play with toy endgame chess as a good model for full chess, I prefer much more Ronald's perfect Syzygy.


Here are 2 games which SF FNTB failed to convert with 5-men Wins at the root at 15''+ 0.15'' time control:

Code: Select all

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.09.05"]
[Round "2"]
[White "SF Final NTB"]
[Black "SF Master"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "8/8/2K5/8/3k1B2/8/8/n2B4 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "15+0.15"]

1. Ba4 {+4.71/20 0.49s} Kc4 {-132.79/1 0s} 2. Bb5+ {+4.80/22 0.32s}
Kd4 {-132.79/1 0s} 3. Ba4 {+4.78/22 0.052s} Kc4 {-132.79/1 0s}
4. Be5 {+4.87/22 0.18s} Nb3 {-132.79/1 0s} 5. Bb5+ {+4.80/21 0.053s}
Kb4 {-132.79/1 0s} 6. Bd6+ {+4.92/21 0.22s} Kc3 {-132.79/1 0s}
7. Kd5 {+4.92/24 0.085s} Nd2 {-132.79/24 1.1s} 8. Be5+ {+4.92/27 0.44s}
Kc2 {-132.79/1 0s} 9. Be2 {+4.92/26 0.064s} Nb1 {-132.79/1 0s}
10. Bg4 {+4.92/29 0.42s} Nd2 {-132.79/1 0s} 11. Be2 {+4.92/27 0.092s}
Nb1 {-132.79/1 0s} 12. Bg4 {+4.92/32 0.38s} Nd2 {-132.79/1 0s}
13. Kd4 {+4.92/32 0.20s} Nb3+ {-132.79/1 0s} 14. Kc4 {+4.85/23 0.60s}
Nd2+ {-132.79/1 0s} 15. Kd5 {+4.90/22 0.26s} Kd3 {-132.79/1 0s}
16. Bf6 {+4.70/25 0.70s} Nf1 {-132.79/1 0s} 17. Bf5+ {+4.71/22 0.094s}
Ke2 {-132.79/22 0.31s} 18. Bd7 {+4.80/26 0.49s} Kf3 {-132.79/1 0s}
19. Kd4 {+4.92/24 0.48s} Ne3 {-132.79/1 0s} 20. Bc6+ {+4.92/30 0.37s}
Kf2 {-132.79/1 0s} 21. Bh4+ {+4.92/33 0.38s} Ke2 {-132.79/1 0s}
22. Ke4 {+4.92/35 0.097s} Nd1 {-132.79/1 0s} 23. Kd4 {+4.92/23 0.45s}
Ne3 {-132.79/1 0s} 24. Bd8 {+4.94/24 0.38s} Kf2 {-132.79/1 0s}
25. Ke4 {0.00/127 0.006s} Ng2 {-0.32/1 0s} 26. Ke5 {0.00/127 0.004s}
Kg3 {-0.31/1 0s} 27. Be7 {0.00/127 0.004s} Nh4 {-0.29/24 0.34s}
28. Ke4 {0.00/127 0.004s} Ng2 {-0.28/1 0s} 29. Bb4 {0.00/127 0.004s}
Kf2 {-0.27/1 0s} 30. Bb5 {0.00/127 0.003s} Kg3 {-0.25/34 0.61s}
31. Bd7 {0.00/127 0.003s} Kf2 {-0.24/1 0s} 32. Be7 {0.00/127 0.003s}
Kg3 {-0.23/1 0s} 33. Bc6 {0.00/127 0.003s} Kf2 {-0.23/1 0s}
34. Bd8 {0.00/127 0.003s} Kg3 {-0.23/1 0s} 35. Ke5 {0.00/127 0.002s}
Ne3 {-0.21/27 0.49s} 36. Be7 {0.00/127 0.004s} Ng2 {-0.20/27 0.22s}
37. Be4 {0.00/127 0.003s} Ne1 {-0.19/25 0.76s} 38. Bd6 {0.00/127 0.006s}
Kf2 {-0.19/22 3.8s} 39. Bb4 {0.00/127 0.004s} Ng2 {-0.17/1 0s}
40. Bc5+ {0.00/127 0.004s} Kg3 {-0.16/1 0s} 41. Bd4 {0.00/127 0.004s}
Nh4 {-0.10/17 0.78s} 42. Kd5 {0.00/127 0.003s} Kf4 {-0.08/1 0s}
43. Bf6 {0.00/127 0.005s} Nf3 {-0.07/1 0s} 44. Bc3 {0.00/127 0.004s}
Ke3 {-0.06/14 0.35s} 45. Bb4 {0.00/127 0.004s} Ng5 {-0.05/20 0.58s}
46. Bf5 {0.00/127 0.003s} Kf4 {-0.05/33 0.47s} 47. Bd7 {0.00/127 0.003s}
Nf3 {-0.04/1 0s} 48. Bd6+ {0.00/127 0.005s} Ke3 {-0.03/1 0s}
49. Bc5+ {0.00/127 0.004s} Kf4 {-0.02/1 0s} 50. Bf2 {0.00/127 0.003s}
Ne5 {0.00/1 0s, Draw by fifty moves rule} 1/2-1/2



[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.09.05"]
[Round "32"]
[White "SF Final NTB"]
[Black "SF Master"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "5n2/8/8/8/5K2/1B6/2N5/6k1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "100"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "15+0.15"]

1. Nb4 {0.00/33 0.47s} Nd7 {-132.79/1 0.001s} 2. Nd3 {+0.26/50 1.6s}
Nb6 {-132.79/1 0s} 3. Be6 {+0.17/33 0.52s} Kg2 {-132.79/1 0s}
4. Kg4 {+0.29/28 0.22s} Na4 {-132.79/1 0.002s} 5. Bd5+ {+0.21/27 0.049s}
Kg1 {-132.79/1 0s} 6. Kf3 {+0.17/32 0.32s} Nc3 {-132.79/1 0s}
7. Bc6 {+0.27/31 0.092s} Kf1 {-132.79/1 0s} 8. Bd7 {+0.28/33 0.32s}
Kg1 {-132.79/1 0s} 9. Bc6 {+0.28/37 0.58s} Kf1 {-132.79/1 0s}
10. Bd7 {+0.30/34 0.33s} Kg1 {-132.79/1 0s} 11. Nb4 {+0.27/31 0.076s}
Nb1 {-132.79/15 0.63s} 12. Ke3 {+0.30/37 0.42s} Nc3 {-132.79/1 0.002s}
13. Bc6 {+0.28/33 0.069s} Nd1+ {-132.79/1 0s} 14. Kf3 {+0.34/35 0.29s}
Nc3 {-132.79/20 0.98s} 15. Ke3 {+0.37/33 0.30s} Nd1+ {-132.79/1 0s}
16. Ke2 {+0.42/34 0.27s} Nf2 {-132.79/1 0s} 17. Kf3 {+42.25/29 0.53s}
Nh3 {-132.79/1 0s} 18. Kg3 {+42.25/30 0.60s} Nf2 {-132.79/1 0s}
19. Nc2 {+42.57/36 1.5s} Kf1 {-132.79/1 0s} 20. Bb5+ {+0.36/36 1.1s}
Kg1 {-132.79/1 0s} 21. Kf3 {+39.28/35 0.063s} Nh3 {-132.79/1 0s}
22. Nd4 {+39.28/35 0.32s} Kh2 {-132.79/1 0s} 23. Bf1 {+0.36/30 0.068s}
Ng5+ {-132.79/1 0s} 24. Kf4 {+32.43/34 0.40s} Nh3+ {-132.79/1 0s}
25. Kg4 {+0.35/29 0.085s} Nf2+ {-132.79/1 0s} 26. Kf3 {+39.28/32 0.22s}
Kg1 {-132.79/1 0s} 27. Be2 {+40.89/28 0.066s} Nh3 {-132.79/1 0s}
28. Ne6 {+0.35/34 0.79s} Nf2 {-132.79/1 0s} 29. Ng5 {+0.30/29 0.083s}
Nh1 {-132.79/1 0s} 30. Nh3+ {+0.38/34 0.27s} Kh2 {-132.79/1 0s}
31. Nf4 {+0.30/26 0.072s} Kg1 {-132.79/1 0s} 32. Nd5 {+0.34/31 0.28s}
Kh2 {-132.79/1 0s} 33. Bd3 {+0.27/25 0.074s} Kg1 {-132.79/1 0s}
34. Nf6 {0.00/32 0.69s} Kh2 {-132.79/1 0s} 35. Ng4+ {0.00/42 0.35s}
Kh3 {-0.47/1 0s} 36. Bc2 {0.00/127 0.002s} Ng3 {-0.38/1 0.001s}
37. Ne3 {0.00/127 0.002s} Nh5 {-0.35/1 0s} 38. Ng2 {0.00/127 0.002s}
Kh2 {-0.35/1 0s} 39. Nh4 {0.00/127 0.002s} Ng7 {-0.29/1 0s}
40. Bb3 {0.00/127 0.002s} Ne8 {-0.29/1 0s} 41. Nf5 {0.00/127 0.002s}
Nf6 {-0.29/1 0s} 42. Ba4 {0.00/127 0.003s} Nh7 {-0.29/1 0s}
43. Kg4 {0.00/127 0.002s} Nf6+ {-0.29/1 0s} 44. Kf3 {0.00/127 0.001s}
Nh7 {-0.27/1 0s} 45. Kg4 {0.00/127 0.002s} Nf6+ {-0.27/1 0s}
46. Kf4 {0.00/127 0.001s} Nd5+ {-0.27/33 0.79s} 47. Kf3 {0.00/127 0.001s}
Nf6 {-0.27/1 0.002s} 48. Ne3 {0.00/127 0.002s} Kh3 {-0.16/1 0s}
49. Ng2 {0.00/127 0.002s} Kh2 {-0.14/1 0s} 50. Ne1 {0.00/127 0.002s}
Kh3 {-0.12/1 0s, Draw by fifty moves rule} 1/2-1/2

Here are 2 games which SF FNTB failed to convert with 6-men Wins at the root at 60''+ 0.6'' time control:

Code: Select all

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.09.05"]
[Round "36"]
[White "SF Final NTB"]
[Black "SF Master"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "Q5Q1/1r6/2k4q/8/8/8/8/1K6 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "60+0.6"]

1. Kc2 {+0.42/39 6.5s} Qh2+ {-132.79/1 0.001s} 2. Kd3 {+5.19/25 5.8s}
Qd6+ {-132.79/1 0s} 3. Ke4 {+5.72/15 1.7s} Qb4+ {-132.79/1 0s}
4. Kf3 {+9.48/30 6.3s} Qc3+ {-132.79/1 0s} 5. Kg4 {+52.65/13 2.2s}
Qd4+ {-132.79/1 0s} 6. Kh3 {+5.80/14 0.28s} Qe3+ {-132.79/1 0s}
7. Kh4 {+6.01/15 0.67s} Qe1+ {-132.79/1 0s} 8. Qg3 {+6.01/14 0.23s}
Qe7+ {-132.79/1 0s} 9. Qg5 {+6.01/23 1.1s} Qe1+ {-132.79/1 0s}
10. Kg4 {+5.97/16 1.3s} Qd1+ {-132.79/1 0s} 11. Kg3 {+6.01/15 0.22s}
Qg1+ {-132.79/1 0s} 12. Kf4 {0.00/28 5.4s} Qf2+ {-132.79/1 0s}
13. Ke4 {0.00/37 6.6s} Qc2+ {-132.79/1 0s} 14. Kd4 {0.00/41 1.2s}
Qd1+ {-132.79/23 4.3s} 15. Kc3 {0.00/41 0.58s} Qf3+ {-132.79/1 0s}
16. Kc2 {0.00/41 1.2s} Qe4+ {-132.79/30 1.1s} 17. Kc1 {0.00/45 2.3s}
Qe1+ {-132.79/1 0s} 18. Kc2 {0.00/1 0s} Qe4+ {-132.79/30 3.7s}
19. Kc1 {0.00/50 8.0s} Qe1+ {-0.48/1 0s} 20. Kc2 {0.00/1 0s}
Qe4+ {-0.48/40 2.2s, Draw by 3-fold repetition} 1/2-1/2



[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.09.05"]
[Round "40"]
[White "SF Final NTB"]
[Black "SF Master"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[FEN "8/5P2/2n1k3/8/3K4/1P6/1P6/8 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "92"]
[SetUp "1"]
[TimeControl "60+0.6"]

1. Kc5 {+1.15/32 3.6s} Ne5 {-132.79/29 4.8s} 2. f8=N+ {+1.22/37 0.20s}
Ke7 {-132.79/30 0.23s} 3. Kd4 {+1.71/24 0.67s} Nf3+ {-132.79/32 1.1s}
4. Ke3 {+2.25/22 0.33s} Ne5 {-132.79/33 0.28s} 5. Ke4 {+2.35/26 1.6s}
Kd6 {-132.79/35 1.3s} 6. Kd4 {+52.81/24 0.87s} Nc6+ {-132.79/40 1.5s}
7. Kc4 {+132.61/22 0.85s} Ne5+ {-132.79/41 0.54s} 8. Kc3 {+132.65/22 0.40s}
Kc5 {-132.79/44 1.7s} 9. Ne6+ {+1.58/43 2.7s} Kc6 {-132.79/43 1.3s}
10. Nd4+ {+1.58/53 1.7s} Kc5 {-132.79/40 0.26s} 11. b4+ {+1.58/56 0.31s}
Kb6 {-132.79/43 1.3s} 12. Nf5 {+4.47/29 3.6s} Ng4 {-132.79/40 0.44s}
13. Nd6 {+132.62/25 0.97s} Nf2 {-132.79/41 6.1s} 14. Kc4 {+4.47/31 3.9s}
Nd1 {-132.79/40 3.0s} 15. Kb3 {+4.62/28 1.4s} Kc6 {-132.79/40 0.55s}
16. Ne4 {+7.44/25 5.5s} Ne3 {-132.79/39 1.9s} 17. Nc3 {+4.22/22 5.2s}
Kb6 {-132.79/40 0.30s} 18. Ne4 {+7.44/24 1.3s} Ka6 {-132.79/43 1.7s}
19. Nc3 {+4.12/28 3.7s} Kb6 {-132.79/47 1.4s} 20. Ka4 {+4.54/32 1.8s}
Ka6 {-132.79/47 0.56s} 21. Ka3 {+5.72/30 2.4s} Nc4+ {-132.79/35 0.99s}
22. Kb3 {+6.31/31 2.8s} Ne5 {-132.79/38 0.32s} 23. Ne4 {+7.17/28 0.80s}
Kb6 {-132.79/41 1.6s} 24. Nf6 {+4.73/35 4.0s} Kb5 {-132.79/1 0s}
25. Kc3 {+8.45/32 1.2s} Nc6 {-132.79/1 0s} 26. Nd5 {+10.49/32 4.4s}
Ka4 {-132.79/1 0s} 27. Kc4 {+3.28/48 7.7s} Ne5+ {-132.79/1 0s}
28. Kd4 {+7.67/29 0.71s} Nc4 {-132.79/31 1.6s} 29. Kc3 {+10.49/28 1.4s}
Nd6 {-132.79/1 0s} 30. Ne3 {+12.50/23 0.20s} Nc8 {-132.79/1 0s}
31. Nf5 {+132.62/29 1.7s} Nb6 {-132.79/1 0s} 32. Ne7 {+9.22/27 2.3s}
Kb5 {-132.79/1 0s} 33. Kb3 {+7.65/25 0.17s} Nc4 {-132.79/1 0s}
34. Nd5 {+7.55/37 6.1s} Nd2+ {-132.79/42 1.7s} 35. Kc2 {+56.91/23 0.47s}
Nf3 {-132.79/46 1.9s} 36. Kc3 {+11.78/22 0.23s} Ne5 {-132.79/44 0.91s}
37. Ne3 {+132.62/27 0.46s} Nf7 {-132.79/33 5.6s} 38. Nc2 {+120.63/27 4.4s}
Ne5 {-132.79/34 1.7s} 39. Ne3 {+120.59/26 0.60s} Ka4 {-132.79/39 1.5s}
40. Nc2 {+132.63/28 0.43s} Nc6 {-132.79/36 3.1s} 41. Kc4 {+1.97/32 0.77s}
Ne5+ {-132.79/38 1.4s} 42. Kd4 {+7.64/32 0.60s} Nc4 {-132.79/33 1.4s}
43. Kc3 {+11.78/26 0.23s} Nb6 {-132.79/1 0s} 44. Ne3 {+11.76/23 0.12s}
Nc8 {-132.79/1 0s} 45. Nd5 {0.00/91 0.91s} Nd6 {-0.47/1 0s}
46. Ne3 {0.00/127 0.004s} Nc8 {-0.47/1 0s, Draw by 3-fold repetition} 1/2-1/2