Ethereal 12 (3400) loses to God! (Most Amazing Game I've Seen)

[yanquis1972]

If beauty is subject to mathematical proof, you must have a very gray existence

[M ANSARI]

Wow … a gem of a game indeed! Incredible how forceful that bishop pin was. Even with a Queen and two rooks and what looked like an exposed King … yet it seemed that it was impossible to untangle. Probably somewhere at some time, material had to be returned. I can't but imagine how a human would have felt … being up a queen and still having 2 rooks on board and yet being helpless. Funny how even a queen down … still able to play quiet pawn moves … Lc0 was always a little sadistic

[jp]

If beauty is subject to mathematical proof, you must have a very gray existence

Beauty is just subject to truth. That's all. Untruth is not beautiful.

No one said anything about proof, though without proof it can be difficult to know truth.

[Marek Soszynski]

If beauty is subject to mathematical proof, you must have a very gray existence

Beauty is just subject to truth. That's all. Untruth is not beautiful.

No one said anything about proof, though without proof it can be difficult to know truth.

What? "Untruth is not beautiful"? Art (literature, painting, movies...) is lies — and beauty.

[jp]

What? "Untruth is not beautiful"? Art (literature, painting, movies...) is lies — and beauty.

What?? You think art is "lies"? No it is not! In what way do you think the painting is lying to you??

[Paloma]

I have been studying and playing chess seriously for 20 years, and in all this time, I have NEVER seen a game like this.

I have been very impressed with Ethereal 12, it is very, very strong and now with a more refined positional style to boot.

But the way Lc0, even on my very weak hardware (laptop with built-in Nividia card) beat it from a position where Ethereal thought it was +4 is the most amazing thing I've EVER seen.

Witness this amazing game.

[pgn][Event "Elites Sharp, Blitz 3min+2sec-1"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.04.03"]
[Round "2.7"]
[White "Ethereal 12.00 (PEXT)"]
[Black "Lc0 v0.23.2+git.c8d9095, 58462."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A55"]
[Annotator "1.34;1.10"]
[PlyCount "154"]
[EventDate "2020.04.02"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[SourceTitle "Fritz Engine Tournament"]
[Source "Doe"]

{Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8565U CPU @ 1.80GHz 1992 MHz W=19.9 plies; 2,081kN/s;
239,128 TBAs B=9.5 plies; 4kN/s; 609 TBAs} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Nbd7 4. e4
e5 5. Nf3 c6 6. Be2 exd4 7. Nxd4 {1.34/16 8} g6 {1.10/7 5 (Ne5)} 8. Bf4 {
1.16/20 22} Nc5 {1.17/10 6} 9. f3 {1.54/21 17} Nh5 {1.25/12 7} 10. Be3 {
1.50/20 6} Bg7 {1.20/12 1} 11. g3 {1.30/19 9 (g4)} a5 {0.97/9 12 (0-0)} 12. Qd2
{1.47/20 11} a4 {1.02/10 2} 13. O-O-O {1.35/22 14} Qe7 {0.99/10 7 (Qa5)} 14. g4
{1.84/20 9} Nf6 {1.05/12 3} 15. Bf4 {1.66/20 7 (Nc2)} Bxg4 {1.55/10 13} 16. Qe3
{1.87/22 7 (Nc2)} O-O {1.45/9 5} 17. fxg4 {1.80/22 6} a3 {1.11/11 4 (Nfxe4)}
18. b3 {2.31/22 15} Nfxe4 {0.97/13 4 (Rfe8)} 19. Bf3 {2.10/22 9 (Nxe4)} Nxc3 {
0.80/14 6} 20. Qxe7 {2.22/23 5} Nxa2+ {1.03/15 3} 21. Kb1 {2.08/23 4 (Kd2)} Nb4
{0.08/11 7} 22. Qe3 {2.00/23 13} a2+ {0.36/11 12 (Ne6)} 23. Kb2 {2.31/24 7} Ne6
{0.18/19 3} 24. Bxd6 {2.26/21 3 (Bh6)} c5 {-0.13/10 5 (a1Q+)} 25. Bxc5 {
2.80/23 12 (Bxb7)} Nxc5 {-0.24/11 6} 26. Kc3 {2.70/22 3} Nba6 {0.17/14 5 (Nc6)}
27. Bd5 {2.65/20 11 (b4)} Nc7 {-0.38/13 6} 28. Kc2 {2.04/21 12} Nxd5 {-0.27/13
4} 29. cxd5 {2.10/21 7} Na6 {-0.38/11 11 (Rfe8)} 30. Kb2 {2.28/19 6} Nc7 {
-0.60/10 4 (Nb4)} 31. Rd2 {2.02/19 8 (Ka1)} Nxd5 {-0.69/9 8 (Rfd8)} 32. Qg3 {
1.06/20 6 (Qe4)} Nb4 {-0.96/9 7 (Rfd8)} 33. Ra1 {1.09/21 2 (Rhd1)} Rad8 {
-0.74/9 6 (Rfd8)} 34. Qc3 {2.32/20 3 (Rxa2)} Nc6 {-1.34/14 5} 35. Rad1 {
1.55/20 4 (Rxa2)} Nxd4 {-0.39/10 10 (Ra8)} 36. Rxd4 {5.00/18 2} Rc8 {-0.28/9 5}
37. Qb4 {5.13/19 1} Ra8 {-0.21/9 2} 38. Ka1 {4.78/19 2} Rfe8 {-0.13/8 9 (Rfd8)}
39. Qc3 {4.84/16 2 (g5)} Rec8 {-0.07/7 9 (h6)} 40. Qd2 {4.44/19 5 (Qb2)} Rd8 {
-0.03/6 7 (Re8)} 41. Qb2 {5.00/19 4 (Qf4)} Rdc8 {0.11/7 5 (Re8)} 42. g5 {
5.51/19 3} Rf8 {0.28/7 5} 43. Rf1 {5.62/18 2 (h4)} Rfe8 {0.17/6 4 (h6)} 44. Qc3
{4.80/18 2 (b4)} Rac8 {0.05/8 5} 45. Qd2 {4.80/20 2} Rc2 {0.24/10 3 (Re2)} 46.
Qf4 {5.60/19 3} Kh8 {0.25/9 4} 47. h4 {5.43/19 2} Rce2 {0.14/9 6} 48. Rfd1 {
5.70/20 2} Kg8 {0.09/8 3} 49. Qd6 {5.80/20 2 (h5)} Be5 {0.02/7 9 (Ra8)} 50. Qd5
{5.82/20 3 (Qc5)} Rc8 {-0.32/8 4 (Rf2)} 51. Qd7 {5.59/19 2 (b4)} Rcc2 {-0.36/9
4 (Ra8)} 52. Rf1 {4.25/19 2 (Qd5)} Rc7 {-0.42/10 3} 53. Qd8+ {1.98/18 2 (Qd5)}
Kg7 {-0.56/8 0} 54. Rfd1 {0.97/20 3 (Qd5)} Rcc2 {-0.71/9 6 (Rc6)} 55. Qd5 {
0.67/22 2} h5 {-0.62/10 3 (Kh8)} 56. gxh6+ {3.52/17 2} Kxh6 {-0.54/10 2} 57.
Rh1 {3.98/19 2 (Qd8)} b6 {-0.77/8 10 (Rb2)} 58. Rhd1 {4.24/19 3 (h5)} b5 {
-0.83/7 3 (Rb2)} 59. Rh1 {4.29/18 2 (h5)} Rc8 {-0.91/7 3} 60. Rhd1 {3.53/17 2
(Rf1)} b4 {-0.83/8 3 (Rcc2)} 61. Rf1 {0.01/23 2 (h5)} Rcc2 {-0.51/8 3 (Rc7)}
62. h5 {0.01/25 3} g5 {-0.51/9 1} 63. Rh1 {0.01/25 2 (Qd8)} Rc3 {-0.82/7 3
(Rc7)} 64. Qd8 {0.00/24 2 (Rf1)} Rf3 {-1.01/7 3 (Kh7)} 65. Rg1 {0.00/21 3
(Rhd1)} g4 {-1.68/7 1 (Kh7)} 66. Qb6+ {-5.19/19 2 (Qf8+)} Kh7 {-1.86/8 2} 67.
Qc5 {-5.73/18 2} g3 {-2.35/8 1} 68. Qxe5 {-6.09/17 2 (Qc4)} Rxe5 {-5.88/8 2}
69. Rg4 {-6.48/18 3} f5 {-6.23/10 3 (Ree3)} 70. R4xg3 {-5.35/17 2} Rxg3 {
-6.69/11 1} 71. Rxg3 {-5.52/19 2} Kh6 {-7.40/10 2} 72. Rg1 {-9.61/18 2 (Rh3)}
Kxh5 {-9.51/7 3 (Ra5)} 73. Rf1 {-10.65/19 3} Rb5 {-10.47/7 2 (Ra5)} 74. Kxa2 {
-5.60/17 2 (Kb2)} Kg4 {-11.40/7 3} 75. Rg1+ {-8.64/18 2 (Kb2)} Kf3 {-12.53/6 3}
76. Rg8 {-10.47/20 2 (Rg5)} f4 {-16.14/6 2} 77. Rf8 {-12.64/18 3 (Rg1)} Kg4 {
-16.18/6 3 (Kg3)} 0-1[/pgn]

To do this to a weak engine is one thing...but to Ethereal?

With a BISHOP vs a queen?

What the hell is going on here? Amazing.

Ethereal may have a bug (edit: nevermind, the game was very fast). Current Honey sees draw in < than second while Ethereal was +5.6. @ move 43.
Entertaining game, no doubt - thx for sharing...
....

move 43??
Ethereal could save the game with 64.Rf1 instead of Qd8

Houdini 6.02 has until 63...Rc3 a score of 0.00

Now only Rf1 and Rhd1 are 0.00 moves

Analysis by Houdini 6.02 Pro x64-pext:

64.Rf1 Rc7 65.Qd8 Kh7 66.Qd5 Kh6
The position is equal: = (0.00) Depth: 52/114 03:31:34 120677MN, tb=1919927

and 67.Qd8 Re7 68.Qd5 Rc7 69.Qd8 Threefold repetition

64.Dd8? is a blunder. Houdini 6.02: 64...Rf3 -6.48 Depth: 34

See Dann Corbit's epd analysis in this thread:
8/5p2/7k/3Qb1pP/1p1R4/1P6/p1r1r3/K6R b - - acd 45; bm g4; c3 "Rc3"; ce 0; pm g4; pv g4 Qxe5 Rxe5 Rxg4 Rxh5 Rf1 Rc7
8/5p2/7k/3Qb1pP/1p1R4/1Pr5/p3r3/K6R w - - acd 45; bm Rhd1; c3 "Qd8"; ce 0; pm Rhd1; pv Rhd1 Rcc2 Rh1 g4 Qxe5 Rxe5 R
3Q4/5p2/7k/4b1pP/1p1R4/1Pr5/p3r3/K6R b - - acd 45; bm Rf3; c3 "Rf3"; ce 14889; pm Rf3; pv Rf3 Rd1 Rf4 Qd7 Kh7 Qd5 Bg7

[Vinvin]

64. Qd5-d8? is the losing mistake, equal is : 64.Rf1 Rcc2 65.Rg1 Rc7 66.Rf1 0.00

Analyze by Bluefish-XI, 30 Seconds by moves : http://home.scarlet.be/vincentlejeune/c ... nalyze.log

Other improvements are :
18. Nf5!! +2.90
and
21. Kc2! +1.85

[Paloma]

64. Qd5-d8? is the losing mistake, equal is : 64.Rf1 Rcc2 65.Rg1 Rc7 66.Rf1 0.00
....

That's what i wrote.

[Dann Corbit]

I'm with BrendanJNorman.
...
My first rule of a beautiful/amazing game is to play through it with Winboard.
The importance of this step cannot be over-emphasized.
For instance, if you analyze the Immoral game or the Evergreen game, the computer will point out "blunders" like not capturing a piece that was offered. But when you watch the game unfold unaided, it is a thing of beauty. This game is one of those.

The word "blunder" is loaded, so it should probably be avoided.

But a sacrifice should not be called "beautiful" if it turns out to be unsound, so it does matter in the end whether it loses with best play. (It can still be "amazing", because that includes everything, including "amazingly bad".) If best play after a sac leads to a draw, that's passable but still not as "beautiful" as if it wins.

So the unavoidable question is: when the Q is sacrificed, what is the theoretical result of that position?

By this measure, neither the Evergreen game nor the Immortal game is beautiful.

[Dann Corbit]

What? "Untruth is not beautiful"? Art (literature, painting, movies...) is lies — and beauty.

What?? You think art is "lies"? No it is not! In what way do you think the painting is lying to you??

Plato despised art.
Consider the concept of a cube, all right angles and all sides the same measure.
He considered and actual physical cube a degraded form a a cube, since it does not have mathematical perfection.
And a painting of a cube was even worse, a degradation of a degradation.