The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

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

Moderators: bob, hgm, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Jeroen
Posts: 501
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:49 pm

The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

Post by Jeroen » Sun Jun 18, 2017 7:06 am

[d]1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 28

A lot has been written about Aronian's brilliant 11.a3! move. The current position arises after 11.a3 Bxa3 12.Rxa3 Qxa3 13.c5 Ne4 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Ng5 h6 16.Ngxe4 a5 17.Qc2 a4 18.bxa4 Qb4 19.Nd6 Qa5 20.Nd5 Qxa4 21.Qxa4 Rxa4 22.Ne7+ Kf8 23.Nexc8 Ra8 24.Rb1 Raxc8 25.Nxc8 Rxc8 26.Rxb7 Rb8 27.Rxb8 Nxb8.

According to a lot of good chess players in the forum, the position is lost for black. This is confirmed by several LTC engine matches.

According to Lyudmil Tsvetkov, this position is a clear draw. Quote: "DRAW. Show me a possible winning continuation, and I will refute it."

Roberto Possioto sent Luydmil a challenge on his "clear draw" stance, so it is time for Lyudmil to come out and show if he is right, by playing this challenge and show his variations. Therefore I created this new thread, so we can follow the drawing line we all missed.

First move played by Possioto from the diagram is:

28.e4

It is now Tsvetkov's turn. Please post your response move in this thread.

For the sake of keeping this thread clean, please only post moves in this thread, no comments or analysis.

BrendanJNorman
Posts: 1976
Joined: Sun Feb 07, 2016 11:43 pm
Full name: Brendan J Norman

Re: The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

Post by BrendanJNorman » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:34 pm

Jeroen wrote:[d]1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 28

A lot has been written about Aronian's brilliant 11.a3! move. The current position arises after 11.a3 Bxa3 12.Rxa3 Qxa3 13.c5 Ne4 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Ng5 h6 16.Ngxe4 a5 17.Qc2 a4 18.bxa4 Qb4 19.Nd6 Qa5 20.Nd5 Qxa4 21.Qxa4 Rxa4 22.Ne7+ Kf8 23.Nexc8 Ra8 24.Rb1 Raxc8 25.Nxc8 Rxc8 26.Rxb7 Rb8 27.Rxb8 Nxb8.

According to a lot of good chess players in the forum, the position is lost for black. This is confirmed by several LTC engine matches.

According to Lyudmil Tsvetkov, this position is a clear draw. Quote: "DRAW. Show me a possible winning continuation, and I will refute it."

Roberto Possioto sent Luydmil a challenge on his "clear draw" stance, so it is time for Lyudmil to come out and show if he is right, by playing this challenge and show his variations. Therefore I created this new thread, so we can follow the drawing line we all missed.

First move played by Possioto from the diagram is:

28.e4

It is now Tsvetkov's turn. Please post your response move in this thread.

For the sake of keeping this thread clean, please only post moves in this thread, no comments or analysis.
Where are the rooks in the diagram?

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:34 pm

stop spamming the forum.

I never accepted any challenges and I never play with much weaker players.

but, to do justice the position, here some abundtant fortresses.

do you think black would have been better after c5?

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

first fortress

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:36 pm

[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "myself, owner"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "40"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. e4 {1.23/17 0} f5 {1.29/16 0} 2. e5 {1.37/24 0} Kf7 {1.39/
23 0} 3. f3 {1.36/27 0} g5 {1.35/26 0} 4. Kf2 {1.44/25 0} Kg6 {1.47/21 0} 5.
Ke3 {1.42/25 0} Kf7 {1.47/24 0} 6. h3 {1.49/23 0} Kg6 {1.39/25 0} 7. Ke2 {1.40/
25 0} Nd7 {1.40/27 0} 8. Kd3 {1.34/25 0} Nb8 {1.33/29 0} 9. Kc4 {1.33/29 0} Na6
{1.33/31 0} 10. Ba5 {1.33/26 0} Kf7 {1.33/33 0} 11. Kd3 {1.33/31 0} Kg7 {1.33/
32 0} 12. g4 {7} f4 {1.15/28 1} 13. Kc3 {1.46/28 0} Kf7 {1.15/29 0} 14. Bd8 {
1.08/31 0} Ke8 {1.10/36 0} 15. Bf6 {1.08/33 0} Kf7 {1.08/35 0} 16. h4 {1.08/33
0} gxh4 {1.77/33 1} 17. Bxh4 {1.07/34 0} Nc7 {1.07/34 0} 18. Bf2 {1.07/33 0}
Nd5+ {1.07/33 0} 19. Kb3 {1.07/38 0} Ke7 {1.07/36 0} 20. Be1 {1.07/39 0} Kf7 {
1.07/40 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

first fortress position:

[d]8/5k2/2p1p2p/2PnP3/3P1pP1/1K3P2/8/4B3 w - - 0 21

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

second fortress

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:38 pm

[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SF 8, owner"]
[Black "myself"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "64"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. Ba5 {0} f6 {1.20/23 4} 2. f3 {1.21/21 0} Kf7 {1.18/22 0}
3. Kf2 {1.27/21 0} e5 {1.02/24 0} 4. dxe5 {1.10/25 0} fxe5 {1.21/24 0} 5. Ke2 {
1.07/27 0} Nd7 {1.16/24 0} 6. Bb6 {1.00/23 0} g5 {1.06/23 0} 7. Kd3 {0.97/24 0}
Ke6 {0.94/22 0} 8. Kc4 {1.05/24 0} Nf6 {1.09/23 0} 9. Bd8 {1.05/27 0} Nd5 {1.
13/26 0} 10. Kd3 {1.04/29 0} Nb4+ {1.01/28 0} 11. Kc3 {1.04/27 0} Nd5+ {1.13/
25 0} 12. Kd2 {0.99/29 0} Kd7 {1.13/23 0} 13. Ba5 {0.99/27 0} h5 {1.11/26 0}
14. e4 {1.20/27 0} Nf4 {1.04/28 0} 15. g3 {1.01/29 0} Ng6 {1.08/27 0} 16. Ke3 {
1.04/29 0} Nf8 {1.06/27 0} 17. Bc3 {1.17/25 0} Ng6 {1.32/27 1} 18. Bd2 {1.12/
27 0} Ke7 {1.39/24 0} 19. Kf2 {1.47/29 0} Kf6 {1.43/30 0} 20. Ba5 {1.43/32 0}
Ke7 {1.43/31 0} 21. Bc7 {1.50/29 0} Kd7 {1.50/31 0} 22. Bd6 {1.43/32 0} Ke6 {
1.43/35 0} 23. Ke3 {1.51/28 0} Kf7 {1.50/32 0} 24. Kd2 {1.50/33 0} h4 {1.50/30
0} 25. Bc7 {1.50/30 0} hxg3 {1.50/36 0} 26. hxg3 {1.50/38 0} Ke7 {1.50/31 0}
27. Kc3 {1.50/36 0} Kd7 {0} 28. Bd6 {1.50/41 2} Ke6 {1.50/45 0} 29. Kd3 {1.50/
46 0} Kf6 {1.50/34 0} 30. Ke3 {1.58/35 0} Ke6 {1.58/34 0} 31. Kf2 {1.62/32 0}
Kf7 {1.52/34 0} 32. Kg1 {1.52/35 0} Ke6 {1.52/32 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

[d]8/8/2pBk1n1/2P1p1p1/4P3/5PP1/8/6K1 w - - 0 33

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

3rd fortress

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:40 pm

[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SF 8, owner"]
[Black "myself"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "48"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. Ba5 {0} f5 {0} 2. Kf1 {1.46/23 1} Nd7 {5} 3. Ke2 {1.50/28
0} Nf6 {3} 4. Bc7 {1.54/26 1} g5 {7} 5. f3 {1.54/30 0} h5 {8} 6. Bd8 {1.68/25 1
} Nh7 {4} 7. h4 {1.84/32 1} gxh4 {1.82/35 0} 8. Bxh4 {1.76/34 1} Ke8 {1.73/36 1
} 9. Kd2 {1.73/29 0} Nf8 {1.73/31 0} 10. Kc3 {1.73/32 0} Ng6 {1.73/34 0} 11.
Bg5 {1.73/33 0} Kd7 {1.73/33 0} 12. Kc4 {1.73/34 0} Kc7 {1.73/34 0} 13. e4 {1.
73/36 0} fxe4 {1.73/37 0} 14. fxe4 {1.73/37 0} Kd7 {1.73/36 0} 15. g3 {1.73/33
0} Nh8 {1.73/38 0} 16. Kb4 {1.73/34 0} Nf7 {1.73/32 0} 17. Be3 {1.73/37 0} Kc7
{1.73/33 0} 18. Bf4+ {1.73/35 0} Kd7 {1.73/40 0} 19. Kc3 {1.73/43 0} Nd8 {1.73/
43 0} 20. Kd3 {1.73/44 0} Nf7 {1.73/44 0} 21. Be3 {1.73/37 0} Nh8 {1.73/34 0}
22. Bg5 {1.73/37 0} Nf7 {1.73/39 0} 23. Bf4 {1.73/38 0} Kd8 {1.73/37 0} 24. Be3
{1.73/35 0} Kd7 {1.73/39 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

[d]8/3k1n2/2p1p3/2P4p/3PP3/3KB1P1/8/8 w - - 0 25

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

4th fortress

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:43 pm

[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SF 8, owner"]
[Black "myself"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. g4 {0} Nd7 {1.18/21 2} 2. Kf1 {1.15/18 0} f5 {4} 3. gxf5 {
1.15/21 2} exf5 {1.46/23 0} 4. Ke2 {1.42/26 0} Nf6 {1.43/28 0} 5. f3 {1.35/24 0
} g5 {1.44/23 0} 6. Kd3 {1.49/23 0} Kf7 {1.60/22 0} 7. e4 {1.56/25 0} fxe4+ {
1.68/23 0} 8. fxe4 {1.68/30 0} Ke6 {1.68/31 0} 9. Ba5 {1.68/32 0} Ng4 {1.68/32
0} 10. Bc7 {1.68/32 0} Nf2+ {1.70/21 0} 11. Ke3 {1.79/23 0} Ng4+ {1.75/28 0}
12. Kf3 {1.81/27 0} Nf6 {1.86/31 0} 13. h3 {1.93/28 0} h5 {1.97/26 0} 14. Bd8 {
2.00/29 0} g4+ {2.00/30 0} 15. hxg4 {2.00/35 0} Nxg4 {1.85/33 0} 16. Bg5 {1.82/
28 0} Kd7 {1.70/35 0} 17. Bh4 {1.70/38 0} Ke6 {1.71/31 0} 18. Kf4 {1.82/37 0}
Nh2 {1.89/40 0} 19. Bg5 {1.82/39 0} Nf1 {1.76/44 0} 20. Kf3 {1.76/44 0} Nh2+ {
1.76/45 0} 21. Kg2 {1.76/46 0} Ng4 {1.76/46 0} 22. Kg3 {1.76/46 0} Kd7 {1.76/
47 0} 23. Kh4 {1.76/48 0} Nf2 {1.76/49 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

[d]8/3k4/2p5/2P3Bp/3PP2K/8/5n2/8 w - - 0 24

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

5th fortress

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:49 pm

[pgn][Event "Blitz 1m"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2017.06.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "SF 8, owner"]
[Black "myself"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "46"]
[TimeControl "60"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. h4 {0} Ke7 {1.18/21 2} 2. e4 {1.40/18 0} Nd7 {1.41/22 0}
3. f3 {1.50/22 0} e5 {1.27/21 0} 4. Be3 {1.56/23 0} exd4 {1.39/24 0} 5. Bxd4 {
1.62/22 0} g6 {1.53/21 0} 6. g4 {1.53/26 0} g5 {1.44/25 0} 7. f4 {1.52/24 0}
gxf4 {1.32/25 1} 8. Kf2 {1.47/25 0} Nf8 {1.31/27 0} 9. Kf3 {1.24/23 0} Ne6 {1.
24/27 0} 10. Be5 {1.38/24 0} Nxc5 {1.20/24 0} 11. Bxf4 {1.35/25 0} h5 {1.20/29
0} 12. gxh5 {1.29/28 0} Nd7 {1.20/28 0} 13. h6 {1.20/29 0} Kf8 {1.08/30 0} 14.
Ke3 {0.90/25 0} Kg8 {0.83/31 0} 15. Bg5 {0.81/28 0} f6 {0.81/27 0} 16. Bf4 {0.
81/31 0} Kh7 {0.75/29 0} 17. Kd4 {0.65/23 0} Nf8 {0.79/27 0} 18. Be3 {0.45/22 0
} Nd7 {0.45/29 0} 19. Kc4 {0.45/29 0} Ne5+ {0.45/32 0} 20. Kc5 {0.12/25 0} Ng4
{0.08/33 2} 21. Bd2 {0.08/32 0} Nf2 {0.08/31 0} 22. Kxc6 {0.08/34 0} Nxe4 {0.
08/34 0} 23. Bf4 {0.08/34 0} Kg6 {0.08/34 0} 1/2-1/2

[/pgn]

[d]8/8/2K2pkP/8/4nB1P/8/8/8 w - - 0 24

well, this is already quite normal draw, insufficient material.

so that, there might be some 0.5% winning continuations, but 99% of lines should end in a draw, so my assessment was pretty much correct.

do you think Aronian and Carlsen would necessarily always find the best moves?
they will go for random variations, and 99% of those are draws.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:50 pm

BrendanJNorman wrote:
Jeroen wrote:[d]1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 28

A lot has been written about Aronian's brilliant 11.a3! move. The current position arises after 11.a3 Bxa3 12.Rxa3 Qxa3 13.c5 Ne4 14.Bxe4 dxe4 15.Ng5 h6 16.Ngxe4 a5 17.Qc2 a4 18.bxa4 Qb4 19.Nd6 Qa5 20.Nd5 Qxa4 21.Qxa4 Rxa4 22.Ne7+ Kf8 23.Nexc8 Ra8 24.Rb1 Raxc8 25.Nxc8 Rxc8 26.Rxb7 Rb8 27.Rxb8 Nxb8.

According to a lot of good chess players in the forum, the position is lost for black. This is confirmed by several LTC engine matches.

According to Lyudmil Tsvetkov, this position is a clear draw. Quote: "DRAW. Show me a possible winning continuation, and I will refute it."

Roberto Possioto sent Luydmil a challenge on his "clear draw" stance, so it is time for Lyudmil to come out and show if he is right, by playing this challenge and show his variations. Therefore I created this new thread, so we can follow the drawing line we all missed.

First move played by Possioto from the diagram is:

28.e4

It is now Tsvetkov's turn. Please post your response move in this thread.

For the sake of keeping this thread clean, please only post moves in this thread, no comments or analysis.
Where are the rooks in the diagram?
the rooks have been eaten by the cats.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: The CCC challenge: Possioto vs Tsvetkov

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Sun Jun 18, 2017 12:52 pm

so far, no one has demonstrated a forced win.

why should I show a forced draw?

Locked