interesting endgame in CCCC

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.
jdart
Posts: 3826
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 4:23 am
Location: http://www.arasanchess.org

interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by jdart » Sat Sep 08, 2018 2:55 pm

This wound up in one of the interminable Queen endgames where there are a zillion checks.

I am not clear if White could have drawn or not. I put in a couple annotations where I think there might be better play.

But I only have 5-man TBs so am not sure.

--Jon


Spliffjiffer
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Germany

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by Spliffjiffer » Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:24 pm

hi Jon,
after some back and forth SF-dev says 0.00 after 166.Kb6...seems like a draw eighter way !??...yes, SF says 168.Kb6?? is loosing and gives a draw-score after your suggested 168.Ka7!!(only move)...i have installed some 6-men-TB but not all...this is just a quick observation and not a deep analysis !
Wahrheiten sind Illusionen von denen wir aber vergessen haben dass sie welche sind.

User avatar
Eelco de Groot
Posts: 4162
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Groningen

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by Eelco de Groot » Sat Sep 08, 2018 5:38 pm

Spliffjiffer wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 4:24 pm
hi Jon,
after some back and forth SF-dev says 0.00 after 166.Kb6...seems like a draw eighter way !??...yes, SF says 168.Kb6?? is loosing and gives a draw-score after your suggested 168.Ka7!!(only move)...i have installed some 6-men-TB but not all...this is just a quick observation and not a deep analysis !
Hi guys

I think the search or evaluation of Stockfish would have to be taken with a pinch of salt here. Maybe Komodo sees it much better. Even after seeing that White loses in the game, if you then go back:



Engine: Kaissa IV (512 MB)
by T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott

52 21:16 -0.90 163...Qa3+ 164.Kb5 Qb2+ 165.Ka6 Qa2+
166.Kb6 Qf7 167.Ka6 Qc4+ 168.Kb6 Qb4+
169.Ka6 Kf4 170.Qe6 Ke4 171.Qc6+ Ke3
172.Qb5 Qc3 173.c6 Bc7 174.b8R Bxb8
175.Qxf5 Qxc6+ 176.Ka5 Bf4 (3.552.008.815) 2783

51 21:16 -0.90 163...Qa1+ 164.Kb6 Qb2+ 165.Ka6 Qa3+
166.Kb6 Qb4+ 167.Ka6 Kf4 168.Qe6 Ke4
169.Qc6+ Ke3 170.Qb5 Qc3 171.c6 Bc7
172.b8R Bxb8 173.Qxf5 Qxc6+ 174.Ka5 Bf4
175.Kb4 Qb6+ 176.Kc4 Qd4+ (3.552.008.815) 2783



Engine: Kaissa IV (512 MB)
by T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott

56 41:04 -0.90 164.Kb6 Qb4+ 165.Ka6 Kf4 166.Qe6 Ke4
167.Qc6+ Ke3 168.Qb5 Qc3 169.c6 Bc7
170.b8Q Bxb8 171.Qxf5 Qxc6+ 172.Ka5 Bg3
173.Qg5+ Kf3 174.Qf5+ Kg2 175.Qg4 Qd5+
176.Kb4 Kh2 177.Qe2+ (7.542.234.243) 3059

55 41:04 -0.99 164.Kb5 Qb3+ 165.Ka6 Qc4+ 166.Kb6 Qb4+
167.Ka6 Kf4 168.Qc6 Ke3 169.Qb5 Qa3+
170.Kb6 f4 171.c6 Qd6 172.Qb3+ Kf2
173.Qa2+ Kg3 174.Qg8+ Kh2 175.Qh7+ Kg1
176.Qg8+ Kf1 177.Qb3 (7.542.234.243) 3059

But White probably already lost!? Because if you go forward again (without any tablebases in use here)




Engine: Kaissa IV (512 MB)
by T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott

44 3:56 -2.14 165...Qa4+ 166.Kb6 Qb4+ 167.Ka6 Kf4
168.Qe6 Ke4 169.Qc6+ Ke3 170.Qb5 Qa3+
171.Kb6 f4 172.c6 Qd6 173.Qb3+ Kf2
174.Qc2+ Kf3 175.Qc4 Kg2 176.Qc2+ Kh3
177.Qh7+ Kg3 178.Qg8+ Kh4 (655.500.694) 2776

44 3:56 -2.06 165...Kf4 166.Qe6 Ke4 167.Qc6+ Ke3
168.Qb5 Qc3 169.c6 f4 170.Ka7 Qa3+
171.Kb6 Qd6 172.Qb3+ Kf2 173.Qc2+ Kf3
174.Qc4 Kg2 175.Qc2+ Kh3 176.Qh7+ Kg3
177.Qg8+ Kh4 178.Qh7+ Kg5 (655.500.694) 2776
______________________________________________________
.
.
50 18:01 -2.56 165...Qa4+ 166.Kb6 Qb4+ 167.Ka6 Kf4
168.Qc6 Ke3 169.Qb5 Qa3+ 170.Kb6 f4
171.c6 Qd6 172.Qb3+ Kf2 173.Qc2+ Kg1
174.Qb1+ Kg2 175.Qc2+ Kh3 176.Qh7+ Kg3
177.Qg8+ Kh4 178.Qc4 Kg5 (3.431.517.355) 3171

50 18:01 -2.55 165...Kf4 166.Qc6 Ke3 167.Qb5 Qa3+
168.Kb6 f4 169.c6 Qd6 170.Qb3+ Ke2
171.Qc2+ Kf1 172.Qb1+ Kg2 173.Qc2+ Kh3
174.Qh7+ Kg3 175.Qg8+ Kh4 176.Qc4 Kg5
177.Ka7 Qe7 178.Qg8+ Kh6 (3.431.517.355) 3171
______________________________________________________

51 22:02 -2.85 165...Kf4 166.Qc6 Ke3 167.Qb5 Qa3+
168.Kb6 f4 169.c6 Qd6 170.Qb3+ Kf2
171.Qc2+ Kg1 172.Qc1+ Kg2 173.Qc2+ Kh3
174.Qb3+ Kh4 175.Qc4 Kg5 176.Qg8+ Kh6
177.Qc4 Qf6 178.Qg8 Qe7 (4.074.865.789) 3081

51 22:02 -2.74 165...Qa4+ 166.Kb6 Qb4+ 167.Ka6 Kf4
168.Qc6 Ke3 169.Qb5 Qa3+ 170.Kb6 f4
171.c6 Qd6 172.Qb3+ Kf2 173.Qc2+ Kg1
174.Qc1+ Kg2 175.Qc2+ Kh3 176.Qb3+ Kh4
177.Qc4 Kg5 178.Qg8+ Kh6 (4.074.865.789) 3081
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan

User avatar
Eelco de Groot
Posts: 4162
Joined: Sun Mar 12, 2006 1:40 am
Location: Groningen

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by Eelco de Groot » Sat Sep 08, 2018 6:55 pm

Now at -3 but of course it is better to look at it with tablebases, the more so if you don't trust the standard evaluation.

2Q5/1P6/K7/2P1bp2/1q4k1/8/8/8 b - -

Engine: Kaissa IV (512 MB)
by T. Romstad, M. Costalba, J. Kiiski, G. Linscott

55 81:06 -3.02 165...Kf4 166.Qe6 Ke4 167.Qc6+ Ke3
168.Qb5 Qc3 169.c6 f4 170.Ka7 Qa3+
171.Kb6 Qd6 172.Qb3+ Kf2 173.Qa2+ Kg3
174.Qg8+ Kh4 175.Qc4 Kg5 176.Qg8+ Kh6
177.Qc4 Qf6 178.Qg8 Qe7 (18.286.922.318) 3757

55 81:06 -3.01 165...Qa4+ 166.Kb6 Qb4+ 167.Ka6 Kf4
168.Qe6 Ke4 169.Qc6+ Ke3 170.Qb5 Qc3
171.c6 f4 172.Ka7 Qa3+ 173.Kb6 Qd6
174.Qb3+ Kf2 175.Qc2+ Kg1 176.Qb1+ Kg2
177.Qc2+ Kh3 178.Qb3+ Kh4 (18.286.922.318) 3757
Debugging is twice as hard as writing the code in the first
place. Therefore, if you write the code as cleverly as possible, you
are, by definition, not smart enough to debug it.
-- Brian W. Kernighan

Spliffjiffer
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Germany

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by Spliffjiffer » Sat Sep 08, 2018 7:42 pm

hi Eelco, yes the line your Kaissa gives is practically the same i was getting my conclusion from (but as sayed i have the most important 6-men installed)...your Kaissa gives:
55 81:06 -3.02 165...Kf4 166.Qe6 Ke4 167.Qc6+ Ke3
168.Qb5 Qc3 169.c6 f4 170.Ka7 Qa3+
171.Kb6 Qd6 172.Qb3+ Kf2 173.Qa2+ Kg3
174.Qg8+ Kh4 175.Qc4 Kg5
according to my quick analysis this is indeed winning but quickly after i checked this out i found 175.Qh7+ (instead of 175.Qc4??!) which is leading to a forced repetition i think (i did not anylyse very deep so i dont really KNOW why its 0.00 for SF)

regards :-)
Wahrheiten sind Illusionen von denen wir aber vergessen haben dass sie welche sind.

zullil
Posts: 5670
Joined: Mon Jan 08, 2007 11:31 pm
Location: PA USA
Full name: Louis Zulli

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by zullil » Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:13 pm



Cfish-dev with 6-man endgame tables says 168. Ka7 draws and all other moves lose.

After 168. Ka7 Kg5 we have



and all moves lose except for one cute one.

Spliffjiffer
Posts: 216
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2012 5:48 pm
Location: Germany

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by Spliffjiffer » Sat Sep 08, 2018 9:13 pm

yes, its incredible ;-)....1. its a study...2...sometimes the engines are insanely amazing, othertimes they dont get the easiest things ;-)
Wahrheiten sind Illusionen von denen wir aber vergessen haben dass sie welche sind.

User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:35 am

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by George Tsavdaris » Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:00 am

zullil wrote:
Sat Sep 08, 2018 8:13 pm
After 168. Ka7 Kg5 we have



and all moves lose except for one cute one.
Yes b8N!! draws.
[d]1NQ5/K7/8/2Pqbpk1/8/8/8/8 b - - 0 169


Problem is that after 168.Ka7 black instead of 168...Kg5 can play 168...Qa2+
And then after the forced: 169.Kb6 Qb3+ 170.Ka6 Qa4+ 171.Kb6 Qb4+ 172.Ka6 Kf4 and is this a draw? Maybe.

[d]2Q5/1P6/K7/2P1bp2/1q3k2/8/8/8 w - - 0 173

Note that now 173.Qc6 or Qe6 doesn't matter as they lead to transposition. This is forced:
E.g 173.Qc6 Ke3 174.Qb5 Qc3 175.c6 f4 176.Ka7 Qa3+ 177.Kb6 Qd6 178.Qb3+ Kf2 179.Qa2+ and this is a win for black? Hmm....
Can you find a better move for white in the above line?
[d]8/1P6/1KPq4/4b3/5p2/8/Q4k2/8 b - - 0 179



Note, that white missed the draw even earlier than 168th move and instead of 160.Qf8 he could have drawn with 160.Qh7+ Kg4 161.b8N!!

[d]1N6/K6Q/4q3/2P1bp2/6k1/8/8/8 b - - 0 161
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....

User avatar
George Tsavdaris
Posts: 1610
Joined: Thu Mar 09, 2006 11:35 am

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by George Tsavdaris » Sun Sep 09, 2018 9:01 am

George Tsavdaris wrote:
Sun Sep 09, 2018 8:00 am
Problem is that after 168.Ka7 black instead of 168...Kg5 can play 168...Qa2+
And then after the forced: 169.Kb6 Qb3+ 170.Ka6 Qa4+ 171.Kb6 Qb4+ 172.Ka6 Kf4 and is this a draw? Maybe.

[d]2Q5/1P6/K7/2P1bp2/1q3k2/8/8/8 w - - 0 173
I got someone on Leela's discord(Aloril) with full 7 TBs on SSDs with Cfish to analyze this after 168.Ka7 Qa2+ 169. Kb6 Qb3+ and got:
info depth 47 seldepth 16 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 274397857 nps 3839450 hashfull 101 tbhits 9064229 time 71468 pv b6c6 g4f4 c8d8 f4e4 d8d2 b3e6 c6b5 f5f4 d2d1 f4f3 d1b1 e4f4 b1c1 f4f5 c1d1

So it must be a draw.

Note that now 173.Qc6 or Qe6 doesn't matter as they lead to transposition. This is forced:
E.g 173.Qc6 Ke3 174.Qb5 Qc3 175.c6 f4 176.Ka7 Qa3+ 177.Kb6 Qd6 178.Qb3+ Kf2 179.Qa2+ and this is a win for black? Hmm....
And he analyzed it on this also:
info depth 64 seldepth 7 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 2215832333 nps 3049745 hashfull 592 tbhits 78924206 time 726563 pv f2g3 a2g8 g3h4 g8h7 h4g5 h7g8

So again draw.

So Fire had two ways to draw this, with 168.Ka7 instead of 168.Kb6? and with the more easy way i've shown instead of playing 160.Qf8(that still draws) that he played, he could have drawn with 160.Qh7+ Kg4 161.b8N!!
After his son's birth they've asked him:
"Is it a boy or girl?"
YES! He replied.....

IanO
Posts: 476
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 8:45 pm
Location: Portland, OR
Contact:

Re: interesting endgame in CCCC

Post by IanO » Tue Sep 11, 2018 8:59 pm

Speaking of interesting endgames, I found this gem in the Fritz-Ethereal game.


The key 70...Bd8!! was a bolt from the blue!

Post Reply