Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

[Ovyron]

Whoops, I'm sorry, sometimes the fastest way to analyze is to use Chess Openings Wizard's Commands -> Show All Move Orders feature to copy the game from there (as it doesn't have a Copy PGN option), but as transpositions accumulate the list gets very large and one bad selection means you'll pick the wrong move order for the rest of the game...

Thanks Uri.

[Zenmastur]

1) Early on, White sacrificed a central pawn. On move 10, I count only two tempi in compensation, and with the quiet 10th move, that goes even down to one tempo. Usually, a pawn is considered about three tempi in the opening. Does that make the pawn sacrifice dubious?

It makes 1.g4 dubious What is happening here is that you're comparing the pawn sacrifice and resulting positions to what is normal in chess, here the pawn sacrifice is the best white has because anything else leaves it worse than without the pawn sacrifice, so the tempi gotten back just leaves things like after 1.g4 (where white is already down some pawn and a half, whatever that means in a position with equal material.)

Against these black moves giving away that pawn is forced, OR white wouldn't have played 2.g5 in the first place (because then some other second white move by white instead of g5 would have been better than g5+no pawn sacrifice.) If you don't plan on the pawn sac you don't play g5.

Please note that my mainline of defense was with 18. Rc2?? because I hadn't seen 18...Re6!! which kills white (or... white suffers a premature death, since it died anyway). Perhaps if I saw 18. Rc2?? Re6!! then I wouldn't have played 2.g5 but the horizon can only be so large and you'll miss things beyond it. Frankly, there's probably a similar killer move on move 18 for another white second move, but who ventures to try to guess how a game would go for an alternative up to move 18?

2) Especially because the more obvious pawn to sacrifice would have been the weak one on g5. Maybe it would have been possible to distract Black to this pawn while launching a counter attack in the centre?

Oh, you mean instead of 2. g5? Well, there's some variations that look REALLY, REALLY scary, specially ones where black goes insane and throws material at white as if it was rubbish and the variations explode and after seeing them I was like "Harvey would surely have all the fun in these!"

I even recall that my mainline for 2.g5 was the only promising variation that I saw and that without it I'd not have made the claim that white could hold. Like, I thought all the alternative moves of 2.g5 could lose, so, rectifying, had I seen 18. Rc2?? Re6!! I might not have made the claim that I could hold 1.g4 at all, to me what was played was white's last line of defense!

3) The quality sacrifice in move 20 eliminated Black's passed pawn and nominally kept the material balance the same as in the move before. On the other hand, it also got Black rid of his only isolated pawn. After that, White still had the problem on g5, but Black had no obvious weakness for attack. Does that make sense?

There's no line where black has weakness for any attack, white is defending and by move 20 things are so bad that Rxc6 is the only move that doesn't lose on the spot! Believe me, when the position first appeared on my analysis as a possible mainline I saw how bad the positions after Rxc6 looked, and I tried my best to find some line that I could play instead. But, no, if the position after 24.bxc3 is lost then the position after 19...Bg4 is lost. If you're interested you can tell me what other ideas you have for white to try on move 20, but there's some "sudden death" moves that black can play that at least killed all my ideas that didn't include killing that murderous Knight on c6.

So, in conclusion, do you now think 1.g4 is a loss?

Regards,

Zenmastur

[Ovyron]

So, in conclusion, do you now think 1.g4 is a loss?

I don't know - the difference is that before the game started I was certain that 1.g4 was drawn with perfect play, and as black's moves are so easy to predict due to the tree's width, that I could find and play the draw. In retrospect I should have said "if 1.g4 is a draw with perfect play then I guarantee that I can draw anybody". After the game I'm willing to accept it could be a mate in X for black, because I fully expected that if I somehow lost Harvey could tell me what was my losing move (and that he would tell me right as I played it, at that!) but the most likely suspects are 1.g4 or 2.g5 and I ended with a database that tells you how to win if white tries something else! But the problem now is if my logic for thinking 1.g4 was drawn was flawed, my logic for thinking it loses by force could be flawed too (imagine we play a game with reversed colors and Harvey has no problem drawing me.)

I'd still be shocked if 1, just 1 move by white is a mate in X from the opening position, but I wouldn't be "extremely" shocked anymore.

What I'd want right now is someone that thinks they can defend 1.g4 to take on Harvey. I have my popcorns ready and all!

[Zenmastur]

So, in conclusion, do you now think 1.g4 is a loss?

I don't know - the difference is that before the game started I was certain that 1.g4 was drawn with perfect play, and as black's moves are so easy to predict due to the tree's width, that I could find and play the draw. In retrospect I should have said "if 1.g4 is a draw with perfect play then I guarantee that I can draw anybody".

I think there is an flaw in your reasoning. You assume that with your meager hardware you can find the drawing line. I pretty sure this isn't the case. Even with very good hardware this will be a difficult task. Mainly due to the number of moves it takes to convert an advantage in the opening to the same or better advantage in a solvable endgame. The sub-tree that has to be stored in the TT is way to large for a normal sized TT. So, if it is a draw, you will need a very large TT in order to find it and be somewhat sure that your analysis is accurate. Back when SF could have 1 TB of TT I think it was possible. But IIRC this has been reduced to at most 128Gb of TT. This will make if very difficult as I'm not sure a drawing sub-tree will fit in a 128Gb TT. Trying to fit it into a MUCH MUCH smaller TT is futile I think.

After the game I'm willing to accept it could be a mate in X for black, because I fully expected that if I somehow lost Harvey could tell me what was my losing move (and that he would tell me right as I played it, at that!) but the most likely suspects are 1.g4 or 2.g5 and I ended with a database that tells you how to win if white tries something else! But the problem now is if my logic for thinking 1.g4 was drawn was flawed, my logic for thinking it loses by force could be flawed too (imagine we play a game with reversed colors and Harvey has no problem drawing me.)

I don't think it's currently possible to “prove” it loses by force, but, I think it's possible to show that the resulting positions are so bad that it's a pretty safe assumption that SF or other strong engines can drive the position to a winning position as Harvey did.

I'd still be shocked if 1, just 1 move by white is a mate in X from the opening position, but I wouldn't be "extremely" shocked anymore.

What I'd want right now is someone that thinks they can defend 1.g4 to take on Harvey. I have my popcorns ready and all!

If I saw a good defense I would give it a go. The truth is I don't. They all look losing to me. It's just a matter of time to convert the opening advantage to a solvable endgame. I didn't see any chance to convert it to one of the many unwinnable endgames where one side is at a great to severe disadvantage.

Regards,

Zenmastur

[zullil]

What I think is the most likely case is that either 1.g4?? loses by force, or 2.g5?? loses by force, because the rest just went downhill faster... but since I lost a position I guaranteed that I could draw what I think about it might not matter

Here is a Stockfish-PV that I saved from early in the game. Based on this, you might want to investigate 16. Rfc1 instead of 16. Re1.

[d]r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2n3n1/2b3P1/3p2b1/P4N2/1P1BPPBP/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 14

-1.63 14. Rxc5 Qd7 15. Qb3 Rad8 16. Rfc1 Rfe8 17. Qd3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nh4 19. Qh5 Nxg2 20. Kxg2 Qe6 21. Qf3 Qxe2 22. Qxe2 Rxe2 23. Rd1 Rd7 24. Kf3 Re8 25. Re1 Rxe1 26. Bxe1 f6 27. Bd2 fxg5 28. Rxg5 Rf7+ 29. Ke2 Re7+ 30. Kd1 Kf7 31. f4 h6 32. Rh5 Rd7 33. Rh3 Kf6 34. Ke2 Kf5 35. Kd3 b6 36. Rh4 Na5 37. Rh5+ Kg4 38. Rb5 Nc6 39. a4 Ne7 40. Re5 Nd5 41. f5 Nf6 42. a5 bxa5 43. Rxa5 h5 44. Re5 h4 45. Be1 Kf4 46. Ra5 Ng4 47. Bxh4 Ne5+ 48. Ke2 Ke4 49. f6 Nf3 50. fxg7 Rxg7 51. Bg3 Rb7 52. Ra4 Rxb2+ 53. Kd1 Ke3 54. Bd6 Rd2+ 55. Kc1 Re2 56. Bg3 Nd2 57. Ra3+ d3 58. Rxa7 Ne4 59. Re7 Rc2+ 60. Kd1 Kf3 (depth 78, 9:56:13)

FWIW, I think the game was certainly a theoretical draw even after 2. g5.

[Ovyron]

I think there is an flaw in your reasoning. You assume that with your meager hardware you can find the drawing line. I pretty sure this isn't the case. Even with very good hardware this will be a difficult task. Mainly due to the number of moves it takes to convert an advantage in the opening to the same or better advantage in a solvable endgame. The sub-tree that has to be stored in the TT is way to large for a normal sized TT. So, if it is a draw, you will need a very large TT in order to find it and be somewhat sure that your analysis is accurate. Back when SF could have 1 TB of TT I think it was possible. But IIRC this has been reduced to at most 128Gb of TT. This will make if very difficult as I'm not sure a drawing sub-tree will fit in a 128Gb TT. Trying to fit it into a MUCH MUCH smaller TT is futile I think.

Huh? Storing analysis in a TT became obsolete since engines with learning appeared. Critter Session File, Shredder 12, Rybka 3 Persistent Hash, Jeremy Bernstein's Stockfish learning version and others are great examples of how little you actually need to store on a hard disk and how quick is it to retrieve them to solve a position to a draw.

The only problem is outdated eval, so storage isn't the problem, it's when the old software insists that a drawn variation is lost and the tree is too big to show it all the drawn lines so it can learn the right score. So the solution is to implement learning in modern engines.

Unfortunately* the people that have been doing so have kept their efforts private, because they don't want their learning code to be seen, so only a few people get to enjoy this kind of learning.

(*or fortunately, because if everyone had it then it's as if nobody had it )

Interestingly learning is so powerful that in this game Jeremy Bernstein's learning Stockfish (which is public) was not outperformed by learning Stockfish 9 (which is private) by much. Like it was almost half as good (you'd get the same thing after analyzing about twice the positions, with the difference in ELO I had expected you'd need like 10 times the positions.) I was also surprised that learning Stockfish 10 (private) wasn't useful in this game, it threw the towel too early, but couldn't see the difference between drawn lines (say, 2.80 position that is actually drawn) and lost lines (which... turned out to be all of them.)

If I saw a good defense I would give it a go. The truth is I don't. They all look losing to me. It's just a matter of time to convert the opening advantage to a solvable endgame.

After looking for several hours at this almost daily since October I'm in the same boat So perhaps concluding 1.g4 is lost by force is logical. The thing is that for whatever line you choose to investigate, it can be made to look worse than the others, eventually. One can find a draw and go back and see that black had a much better move that is crushing, it looks hopeless!

[zullil]

What I think is the most likely case is that either 1.g4?? loses by force, or 2.g5?? loses by force, because the rest just went downhill faster... but since I lost a position I guaranteed that I could draw what I think about it might not matter

Here is a Stockfish-PV that I saved from early in the game. Based on this, you might want to investigate 16. Rfc1 instead of 16. Re1.

[d]r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2n3n1/2b3P1/3p2b1/P4N2/1P1BPPBP/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 14

-1.63 14. Rxc5 Qd7 15. Qb3 Rad8 16. Rfc1 Rfe8 17. Qd3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nh4 19. Qh5 Nxg2 20. Kxg2 Qe6 21. Qf3 Qxe2 22. Qxe2 Rxe2 23. Rd1 Rd7 24. Kf3 Re8 25. Re1 Rxe1 26. Bxe1 f6 27. Bd2 fxg5 28. Rxg5 Rf7+ 29. Ke2 Re7+ 30. Kd1 Kf7 31. f4 h6 32. Rh5 Rd7 33. Rh3 Kf6 34. Ke2 Kf5 35. Kd3 b6 36. Rh4 Na5 37. Rh5+ Kg4 38. Rb5 Nc6 39. a4 Ne7 40. Re5 Nd5 41. f5 Nf6 42. a5 bxa5 43. Rxa5 h5 44. Re5 h4 45. Be1 Kf4 46. Ra5 Ng4 47. Bxh4 Ne5+ 48. Ke2 Ke4 49. f6 Nf3 50. fxg7 Rxg7 51. Bg3 Rb7 52. Ra4 Rxb2+ 53. Kd1 Ke3 54. Bd6 Rd2+ 55. Kc1 Re2 56. Bg3 Nd2 57. Ra3+ d3 58. Rxa7 Ne4 59. Re7 Rc2+ 60. Kd1 Kf3 (depth 78, 9:56:13)

FWIW, I think the game was certainly a theoretical draw even after 2. g5.

[d]3r1rk1/pp1q1ppp/2n3n1/2R3P1/3p2b1/PQ3N2/1P1BPPBP/5RK1 w - - 3 16

So far, a new search by Stockfish does not consider 16. Re1 to be one of the top two moves in this position from the game:

-1.61 16. Rfc1 Rfe8 17. Qd3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nh4 19. Qh5 Nxg2 20. Kxg2 Qe6 21. Qf3 Qxe2 22. Qxe2 Rxe2 23. Rd1 f6 24. gxf6 gxf6 25. Rh5 Kg7 26. Kf3 Re7 27. Bf4 d3 28. Kg2 Kg6 29. Rh3 Red7 30. Bd2 h5 31. Bc3 Rd5 32. Rg3+ Kf7 33. Kf1 R8d6 34. Rh3 b6 35. Ke1 Na5 36. Bb4 Rd7 37. Rf3 Nc4 38. Bc3 R7d6 39. Rf4 Na5 40. Bb4 Re6+ 41. Kf1 Nc6 42. Bc3 a5 43. Rf3 Red6 44. b3 Kg6 45. Rg3+ Kf5 46. Rf3+ Kg5 47. Rg3+ Kf4 48. Bd2+ Kf5 49. Rf3+ Kg6 50. Rg3+ Kf7 51. Rh3 Nd8 52. Bf4 Rd7 53. Be3 Ne6 54. b4 R7d6 55. Rh4 a4 56. b5 Rxb5 57. Rxa4 Rb3 58. Ra8 Rd5 59. Bd2 Kg6 (depth 61, 7:08:06)

-1.91 16. Qd3 Bxf3 17. Qxf3 Nh4 18. Qe4 Nxg2 19. Kxg2 Rfe8 20. Qf5 Rxe2 21. Qxd7 Rxd7 22. Rd1 f6 23. gxf6 gxf6 24. Kf3 Re8 25. Bf4 d3 26. Kg2 Re4 27. Kf3 Ra4 28. Ke3 Rad4 29. Bg3 Re7+ 30. Kf3 Rd8 31. Kg2 Kf7 32. Bf4 Kg6 33. b4 a6 34. b5 axb5 35. Rxb5 Rdd7 36. Rb3 Re4 37. Bc1 Red4 38. Bb2 R4d5 39. a4 h5 40. Kf1 Ne5 41. Bc3 Nf3 42. Kg2 Nd4 43. Bxd4 Rxd4 44. Kf3 d2 45. Ke3 f5 46. Ke2 f4 47. f3 Kg5 48. Rb5+ Kh4 49. a5 Rg7 50. Kf1 Rdd7 51. Kf2 Rge7 52. Rb4 Kh3 (depth 61, 7:08:06)

[Zenmastur]

I think there is an flaw in your reasoning. You assume that with your meager hardware you can find the drawing line. I pretty sure this isn't the case. Even with very good hardware this will be a difficult task. Mainly due to the number of moves it takes to convert an advantage in the opening to the same or better advantage in a solvable endgame. The sub-tree that has to be stored in the TT is way to large for a normal sized TT. So, if it is a draw, you will need a very large TT in order to find it and be somewhat sure that your analysis is accurate. Back when SF could have 1 TB of TT I think it was possible. But IIRC this has been reduced to at most 128Gb of TT. This will make if very difficult as I'm not sure a drawing sub-tree will fit in a 128Gb TT. Trying to fit it into a MUCH MUCH smaller TT is futile I think.

Huh? Storing analysis in a TT became obsolete since engines with learning appeared. Critter Session File, Shredder 12, Rybka 3 Persistent Hash, Jeremy Bernstein's Stockfish learning version and others are great examples of how little you actually need to store on a hard disk and how quick is it to retrieve them to solve a position to a draw.

Anytime the number of nodes searched greatly exceeds the size of the transposition table it gets overwritten. This is a bad thing. At CC time controls this is almost inevitable if you don't control your search depth to some extent. E.g. you search the move 1.g4 to depth 59. By the time you have searched all other moves to depth 59 the TT has been completely overwritten many times. When you go to search 1.g4 at depth 60 none of the info from your previous search of this move is likely to still be in the TT. So, you have to research the whole branch (save the PV if you happen to have one for this line of play). This takes a lot of extra time. Now if you are using reverse analysis (i.e. backing up through a line a play) having your TT completely overwritten means that the information lost can't be dragged up towards the root when you back up to the previous move in the line of play you are analyzing.) This limits the depth from witch evaluations deep in the tree can be dragged to the root position. Therefore, the size of your TT becomes the limiting factor to the depth of search you can effectively use during reverse analysis.

I'm not sure this explanation is clear enough to understand, but I don't know any other way to explain it. The point is, when you've found something deep in the tree that changes the evaluation of the position and you are backing up through a line of play the last thing you want is for all this information to be overwritten before you get back to the root position. If the line of play you are backup through is very long you will have to do this many times. When you back up a single move, the info in the TT will be used in the new search because it has been searched to 1 ply deeper (assuming the same search depth is used). This will allow the new TT entries to take on the values stored in TT entries that have been searched to a greater depth. This is why reverse analysis work as well as it does and why in some circumstances its actually faster than just letting the engine analyze unattended.

If I saw a good defense I would give it a go. The truth is I don't. They all look losing to me. It's just a matter of time to convert the opening advantage to a solvable endgame.

After looking for several hours at this almost daily since October I'm in the same boat So perhaps concluding 1.g4 is lost by force is logical. The thing is that for whatever line you choose to investigate, it can be made to look worse than the others, eventually. One can find a draw and go back and see that black had a much better move that is crushing, it looks hopeless!

You have to be able to tell the difference between a bad position that will always get worse with increasing search depth and one that won't get worse with depth. Sometimes it's difficult to tell the difference between the two but, I don't think 1.g4 falls into this category.

Regards,

Zenmastur

[zullil]

What I think is the most likely case is that either 1.g4?? loses by force, or 2.g5?? loses by force, because the rest just went downhill faster... but since I lost a position I guaranteed that I could draw what I think about it might not matter

Here is a Stockfish-PV that I saved from early in the game. Based on this, you might want to investigate 16. Rfc1 instead of 16. Re1.

[d]r2q1rk1/pp3ppp/2n3n1/2b3P1/3p2b1/P4N2/1P1BPPBP/2RQ1RK1 w - - 0 14

-1.63 14. Rxc5 Qd7 15. Qb3 Rad8 16. Rfc1 Rfe8 17. Qd3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nh4 19. Qh5 Nxg2 20. Kxg2 Qe6 21. Qf3 Qxe2 22. Qxe2 Rxe2 23. Rd1 Rd7 24. Kf3 Re8 25. Re1 Rxe1 26. Bxe1 f6 27. Bd2 fxg5 28. Rxg5 Rf7+ 29. Ke2 Re7+ 30. Kd1 Kf7 31. f4 h6 32. Rh5 Rd7 33. Rh3 Kf6 34. Ke2 Kf5 35. Kd3 b6 36. Rh4 Na5 37. Rh5+ Kg4 38. Rb5 Nc6 39. a4 Ne7 40. Re5 Nd5 41. f5 Nf6 42. a5 bxa5 43. Rxa5 h5 44. Re5 h4 45. Be1 Kf4 46. Ra5 Ng4 47. Bxh4 Ne5+ 48. Ke2 Ke4 49. f6 Nf3 50. fxg7 Rxg7 51. Bg3 Rb7 52. Ra4 Rxb2+ 53. Kd1 Ke3 54. Bd6 Rd2+ 55. Kc1 Re2 56. Bg3 Nd2 57. Ra3+ d3 58. Rxa7 Ne4 59. Re7 Rc2+ 60. Kd1 Kf3 (depth 78, 9:56:13)

FWIW, I think the game was certainly a theoretical draw even after 2. g5.

[d]3r1rk1/pp1q1ppp/2n3n1/2R3P1/3p2b1/PQ3N2/1P1BPPBP/5RK1 w - - 3 16

So far, a new search by Stockfish does not consider 16. Re1 to be one of the top two moves in this position from the game:

-1.61 16. Rfc1 Rfe8 17. Qd3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nh4 19. Qh5 Nxg2 20. Kxg2 Qe6 21. Qf3 Qxe2 22. Qxe2 Rxe2 23. Rd1 f6 24. gxf6 gxf6 25. Rh5 Kg7 26. Kf3 Re7 27. Bf4 d3 28. Kg2 Kg6 29. Rh3 Red7 30. Bd2 h5 31. Bc3 Rd5 32. Rg3+ Kf7 33. Kf1 R8d6 34. Rh3 b6 35. Ke1 Na5 36. Bb4 Rd7 37. Rf3 Nc4 38. Bc3 R7d6 39. Rf4 Na5 40. Bb4 Re6+ 41. Kf1 Nc6 42. Bc3 a5 43. Rf3 Red6 44. b3 Kg6 45. Rg3+ Kf5 46. Rf3+ Kg5 47. Rg3+ Kf4 48. Bd2+ Kf5 49. Rf3+ Kg6 50. Rg3+ Kf7 51. Rh3 Nd8 52. Bf4 Rd7 53. Be3 Ne6 54. b4 R7d6 55. Rh4 a4 56. b5 Rxb5 57. Rxa4 Rb3 58. Ra8 Rd5 59. Bd2 Kg6 (depth 61, 7:08:06)

-1.91 16. Qd3 Bxf3 17. Qxf3 Nh4 18. Qe4 Nxg2 19. Kxg2 Rfe8 20. Qf5 Rxe2 21. Qxd7 Rxd7 22. Rd1 f6 23. gxf6 gxf6 24. Kf3 Re8 25. Bf4 d3 26. Kg2 Re4 27. Kf3 Ra4 28. Ke3 Rad4 29. Bg3 Re7+ 30. Kf3 Rd8 31. Kg2 Kf7 32. Bf4 Kg6 33. b4 a6 34. b5 axb5 35. Rxb5 Rdd7 36. Rb3 Re4 37. Bc1 Red4 38. Bb2 R4d5 39. a4 h5 40. Kf1 Ne5 41. Bc3 Nf3 42. Kg2 Nd4 43. Bxd4 Rxd4 44. Kf3 d2 45. Ke3 f5 46. Ke2 f4 47. f3 Kg5 48. Rb5+ Kh4 49. a5 Rg7 50. Kf1 Rdd7 51. Kf2 Rge7 52. Rb4 Kh3 (depth 61, 7:08:06)

After a day-long search with MultiPV=2, Stockfish suggests that 16. Re1 is sub-optimal, and that White is already in considerable distress:

-1.82 16. Rfc1 Rfe8 17. Qd3 Bxf3 18. Qxf3 Nh4 19. Qh5 Nxg2 20. Kxg2 Qe6 21. Qf3 Qxe2 22. Qxe2 Rxe2 23. Rd1 Rd7 24. Kf1 Re6 25. Re1 Rxe1+ 26. Kxe1 f6 27. gxf6 gxf6 28. Ke2 Kf7 29. Rh5 Kg6 30. Rh6+ Kf5 31. Rh4 Re7+ 32. Kd1 b6 33. b3 Rf7 34. Ke2 Rd7 35. Rh5+ Kg4 36. Rh6 Re7+ 37. Kf1 Kf5 38. Rh4 Ke5 39. Rh6 Ke4 40. Ke2 Kf5+ 41. Kf1 Rd7 42. Rh4 Ne5 43. Ke2 Ke6 44. h3 Kf5 45. f3 Ke6 46. a4 Ng6 47. Rh6 Rf7 48. Kd3 Kd5 49. Ke2 Re7+ 50. Kd1 Ke5 51. Rh5+ f5 52. Rh6 Rg7 53. h4 Kd5 54. Rh5 Rf7 55. a5 bxa5 56. Bxa5 Ke5 57. Bd2 Rb7 58. Kc2 Nf4 59. Rh6 d3+ 60. Kb2 Nd5 (depth 68, 23:49:39)

-1.98 16. Qd3 Bxf3 17. Qxf3 Nh4 18. Qe4 Nxg2 19. Kxg2 Rfe8 20. Qf5 Rxe2 21. Qxd7 Rxd7 22. Rd1 Re6 23. Bf4 f6 24. gxf6 Rxf6 25. Bg3 Kf7 26. b4 Kg6 27. Rd3 Rf5 28. Rc1 Kf6 29. h3 a6 30. Rcd1 Ke6 31. Rc1 Kf7 32. Rc2 Kf6 33. Re2 Re7 34. Red2 Ke6 35. f3 Rd5 36. Bf2 Kf5 37. Bg3 Red7 38. Kf2 Kf6 39. Re2 Re7 40. Rc2 Kf5 41. Rcd2 Red7 42. Kf1 Kf6 43. Re2 Re7 44. Rc2 Kf5 45. Rc1 Red7 46. Rcd1 Kf6 47. Kg2 Ke6 48. Bf2 Kf5 49. Kg3 Kf6 50. Kg2 Ke6 51. Kg3 Kf5 52. Kg2 (depth 68, 23:49:39)

Terminating this search now.

[jp]

though im still not convinced that there is any 1st move by white that is losing by force but what do i know.

Yes, it would feel surprising to have White lost after just one move, wouldn't it?