1.g4 opening is losing?

[Ovyron]

If playing a game is so important, then so far you have only two pieces of data on this forum to base your opinion on. Yet you talk about "everything I've seen", etc.

I'm talking about the mountain of analysis that I've accumulated, that would be enough to beat Zenmastur easily (unless 1.g4 draws!) Now, I don't know how much that matters, so let's also say that I'd be able to beat Harvey Williamson easily.

With the laughable amount of analysis I had back in October, I wouldn't have been able to beat anyone.

Playing a game is so important because of the amount of analysis that we accumulate (for comparison, what CBDN has on 1.g4 is less than what I had on October!) after the games are over, not about data points (where two games mean nothing).

In theory, someone could produce that same analysis without needing to play a game. In practice, they never have to commit to a move, so they could say a position is draw, or another is won by black, conclusively, even if on an actual game they'd lose the former or failed to win the latter. Only an actual game can show that.

[Exa65536]

Measuring by nodes does not convince me, though, I'd still like to see a draw against Depth 39 (on Game 1 I was still able to produce potential drawing lines against Depth 38, up until the very end, so D39 is where the line could be drawn and it'd be enough to defeat any defense.)

Drawing line versus depth39, as requested
[pgn]1. g4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 Bxg4 5. Nc3 Qa5 6. Ng5 Nc6 7. Qb3 Nd8 8. d3 c6 9. Rg1 Nf6 10. Bd2 Qb6 11. Be3 Qxb3 12. axb3 a6 13. Ra5 Bd6 14. Nge4 Nxe4 15. Rxg4 Nxc3 16. bxc3 g6 17. Kd2 h5 18. Rg1 Ne6 19. Kc2 Kd7 20. h4 Ke7 21. Bh3 Rhg8 22. Bd2 f5 23. b4 Bc7 24. Raa1 Rae8 25. e4 f4 26. Rg2 Kf7 27. f3 Bd8 28. Rh2 Bb6 29. Rg2 Ra8 30. Be1 Rad8 31. Rd1 Ke7 32. Kb3 Kf7 33. Kc4 Nc7 34. d4 Nb5 35. Bf2 exd4 36. cxd4 Kg7 37. Be6 Rgf8 38. Bg1 Rd6 39. Bf5 Kh7 40. Bh3 Kh6 41. Rh2 Kg7 42. Rb2 Rdd8 43. Bf1 Rd7 44. Rbd2 Rfd8 45. Bh3 Rf7 46. Kb3 Kh6 47. Bf1 Rfd7 48. e5 Re8 49. Bc4 Kh7 50. Re1 Bd8 51. Bf2 Nc7 52. Bd3 Rg8 53. Rg1 Nd5 54. Be4 Be7 55. Rdd1 Rdd8 56. Rg2 Rg7 57. Rdg1 Rdg8 58. Rh2 Nxb4 59. Be1 Nd5 60. Bd2 Ne3 61. Bxe3 fxe3 62. Kc4 Rd8 63. Rd1 a5 64. Kd3 Bc5 65. Kxe3 Rgd7 66. Rhd2 Ba7 67. f4 a4 68. f5 Re7 69. Kf4 gxf5 70. Bxf5+ Kh8 71. Ke4 Bb8 72. Rd3 Rd5 73. Bc8 Rd8 74. Bf5 b5 75. Rc1 Rc7 76. Rg1 Rg7 77. Rc1 Rc7 78. Rg1 Rg7 79. Rxg7 Kxg7 80. Rg3+ Kf8 81. Be6 Ke7 82. Bf5 Kf8 83. Rg6 Ba7 84. Rf6+ Ke7 85. Re6+ Kd7 86. Rg6+
[/pgn]

[Ovyron]

Drawing line versus depth39, as requested

Thanks!

So now we have a line that Depth 60 can't defend and yours where depth 39 can't win. The truth is somewhere in the middle, and I wonder if this path (one finds a line depth 40 can't win, then one where depth 41 can't win) could lead to the truth (there's some depth that is enough to beat any defense. Unfortunately we reach a "game takes an entire month" limit very soon...)

[Zenmastur]

...
... snip snip ...
...

Could you do a small test analysis for us? Something not too difficult like analyze this position to mate:

[d]2b3k1/r2r2p1/p1N1q3/1B6/3p4/2b1B2R/PPP5/2K4R w - - 0 36

No outside help please!
...
... snip snip ...
...

Before I forget, the origin of the position in the test was from my analysis of the game Tal-Koblenc 1957

[pgn]

[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "1957.??.??"]
[EventDate "?"]
[Round "?"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Mikhail Tal"]
[Black "Alexander Koblenc"]
[ECO "B63"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 Nc6 6.Bg5 e6 7.Qd2
Be7 8.O-O-O O-O 9.Nb3 Qb6 10.f3 a6 11.g4 Rd8 12.Be3 Qc7 13.h4
b5 14.g5 Nd7 15.g6 hxg6 16.h5 gxh5 17.Rxh5 Nf6 18.Rh1 d5 19.e5
Nxe5 20.Bf4 Bd6 21.Qh2 Kf8 22.Qh8+ Ng8 23.Rh7 f5 24.Bh6 Rd7
25.Bxb5 Rf7 26.Rg1 Ra7 27.Nd4 Ng4 28.fxg4 Be5 29.Nc6 Bxc3
30.Be3 d4 31.Rgh1 Rd7 32.Bg5 axb5 33.R1h6 d3 34.bxc3 d2 35.Kd1
Qxc6 36.Rf6+ Rf7 37.Qxg7+ 1-0
[/pgn]


After 31... Rd7

[d]2b2knQ/r1qr2pR/p1N1p3/1B3p2/3p2P1/2b1B3/PPP5/2K4R w - - 2 32

The best line of play appears to be:

Code: Select all

( [Stockfish 030520 64 POPCNT] 74:M29 32.g5 Qg3 33.g6 Qxe3+ 34.Kb1 Qe1+ 35.Rxe1 Bxe1 36.Nxa7 axb5 37.Nxc8 d3 38.cxd3 Bd2 39.Nd6 Bh6 40.Ne8 Kxe8 41.Qxg8+ Ke7 42.Rxg7+ Bxg7 43.Qxg7+ Kd6 44.Qf8+ Ke5 45.g7 Rxg7 46.Qxg7+ Kd6 47.Qb7 Kc5 48.Qe7+ Kd5 49.Qd7+ Ke5 50.Qxb5+ Kf6 51.a4 f4 52.a5 f3 53.Qc5 f2 54.Qxf2+ Ke7 55.a6 e5 56.a7 e4 57.a8=Q e3 58.Qxe3+ Kd6 59.Qd8+ Kc6 60.Qeb6# )

But this is way too easy to find. The second best move, 32.gxf5, leads to the test position after 32... Qg3 33.R7h3 Qd6 34.Qxg8+ Kxg8 35.fxe6 Qxe6
we now have this:

[d]2b3k1/r2r2p1/p1N1q3/1B6/3p4/2b1B2R/PPP5/2K4R w - - 0 36

Regards,

Zenmastur

[Paloma]

Right. Is there a handy example of a 7-man position that is a theoretical draw for the side to move, but for which only one or two non-obvious moves hold the draw?

I'm interested in finding such positions too, e.g. the simplest possible endgame positions that are too hard for computers alone or even centaurs. They'd probably need to be at least 5-man, I guess.

[d]6N1/3n4/3k1b2/8/1r6/5K1Q/8/8 w - - 0 1

Apparently only one move wins. Good luck to all the centaurs. And to all the engines without endgame tables.

Stockfish (with 6-man tables) has Qf5 with eval +0.38 at depth 54. Wrong move, and eval is off by infinity!

Clearly I need to find a "centaur" to help.

1.Kg2 ! (only move) leads to mate in 542
No Engine will find that.

[mmt]

Drawing line versus depth39, as requested

Cool! I'll run some analysis at long time controls to get some possible alternatives for black.

[Uri Blass]

Right. Is there a handy example of a 7-man position that is a theoretical draw for the side to move, but for which only one or two non-obvious moves hold the draw?

I'm interested in finding such positions too, e.g. the simplest possible endgame positions that are too hard for computers alone or even centaurs. They'd probably need to be at least 5-man, I guess.

[d]6N1/3n4/3k1b2/8/1r6/5K1Q/8/8 w - - 0 1

Apparently only one move wins. Good luck to all the centaurs. And to all the engines without endgame tables.

Stockfish (with 6-man tables) has Qf5 with eval +0.38 at depth 54. Wrong move, and eval is off by infinity!

Clearly I need to find a "centaur" to help.

1.Kg2 ! (only move) leads to mate in 542
No Engine will find that.

mate in 542 means a draw by the 50 move rule.
50 move rule is part of chess.

[mmt]

Drawing line versus depth39, as requested
[pgn]1. g4 d5 2. c4 e5 3. cxd5 Qxd5 4. Nf3 Bxg4 5. Nc3 Qa5 6. Ng5 Nc6 7. Qb3 Nd8 8. d3 c6 9. Rg1 Nf6 10. Bd2 Qb6 11. Be3 Qxb3 12. axb3 a6 13. Ra5 Bd6 14. Nge4 Nxe4 15. Rxg4 Nxc3 16. bxc3 g6 17. Kd2 h5 18. Rg1 Ne6 19. Kc2 Kd7 20. h4 Ke7 21. Bh3 Rhg8 22. Bd2 f5 23. b4 Bc7 24. Raa1 Rae8 25. e4 f4 26. Rg2 Kf7 27. f3 Bd8 28. Rh2 Bb6 29. Rg2 Ra8 30. Be1 Rad8 31. Rd1 Ke7 32. Kb3 Kf7 33. Kc4 Nc7 34. d4 Nb5 35. Bf2 exd4 36. cxd4 Kg7 37. Be6 Rgf8 38. Bg1 Rd6 39. Bf5 Kh7 40. Bh3 Kh6 41. Rh2 Kg7 42. Rb2 Rdd8 43. Bf1 Rd7 44. Rbd2 Rfd8 45. Bh3 Rf7 46. Kb3 Kh6 47. Bf1 Rfd7 48. e5 Re8 49. Bc4 Kh7 50. Re1 Bd8 51. Bf2 Nc7 52. Bd3 Rg8 53. Rg1 Nd5 54. Be4 Be7 55. Rdd1 Rdd8 56. Rg2 Rg7 57. Rdg1 Rdg8 58. Rh2 Nxb4 59. Be1 Nd5 60. Bd2 Ne3 61. Bxe3 fxe3 62. Kc4 Rd8 63. Rd1 a5 64. Kd3 Bc5 65. Kxe3 Rgd7 66. Rhd2 Ba7 67. f4 a4 68. f5 Re7 69. Kf4 gxf5 70. Bxf5+ Kh8 71. Ke4 Bb8 72. Rd3 Rd5 73. Bc8 Rd8 74. Bf5 b5 75. Rc1 Rc7 76. Rg1 Rg7 77. Rc1 Rc7 78. Rg1 Rg7 79. Rxg7 Kxg7 80. Rg3+ Kf8 81. Be6 Ke7 82. Bf5 Kf8 83. Rg6 Ba7 84. Rf6+ Ke7 85. Re6+ Kd7 86. Rg6+
[/pgn]

SF NNUE slightly prefers 8... h6 to 8... c6 from the start. Do you have a drawing continuation after this move?

[d]r2nkbnr/ppp2pp1/7p/q3p1N1/6b1/1QNP4/PP2PP1P/R1B1KB1R w KQkq - 0 9

[lkaufman]

I had the Grob position after 1.g4 played out ten times with ten of the best engines (six different SF NNUEs, 2 of the best Lc0s, the best regular SF and Komodo) on 7 threads at 4' + 2", and Black won every single game, no draws! I don't really believe we can prove by analysis whether it's a win for Black or a draw, but statistically it appears to be quite losing, worse than much more obviously losing opening positions. Usually statistics done this way are a pretty good indication of whether an opening position is won or drawn, assuming we're not talking about some deep tactical opening line where one must find a string of difficult moves to win or draw.

[Vinvin]

Right. Is there a handy example of a 7-man position that is a theoretical draw for the side to move, but for which only one or two non-obvious moves hold the draw?

I'm interested in finding such positions too, e.g. the simplest possible endgame positions that are too hard for computers alone or even centaurs. They'd probably need to be at least 5-man, I guess.

[d]6N1/3n4/3k1b2/8/1r6/5K1Q/8/8 w - - 0 1

Apparently only one move wins. Good luck to all the centaurs. And to all the engines without endgame tables.

Stockfish (with 6-man tables) has Qf5 with eval +0.38 at depth 54. Wrong move, and eval is off by infinity!

Clearly I need to find a "centaur" to help.

1.Kg2 ! (only move) leads to mate in 542
No Engine will find that.

mate in 542 means a draw by the 50 move rule.
50 move rule is part of chess.

There's no draw by the 50 move rule for this position.
https://lichess.org/analysis/6N1/3n4/3k ... _w_-_-_0_1
Click on the book to see the Syzygy DTZ.