Zenmastur vs Ovyron No it's not another GROB II!

[zullil]

I am eager to see the reverse game when this one ends in a draw.

This game ends in a win with correct play. Unless I'm wrong.

[Ovyron]

Yeah, why I think this is winning:

-In an advantageous position that it's possibly drawn, the mainline stays drawn at all times. Each analysis session one tries to bust this defense, and after successfully doing so, one finds another defense (which draws, so the new mainline stays drawing), and one tries to bust this one.

-In a won position, the mainline stays won at all times. Each analysis session one tries to find a defense against this attack, and if one is unsuccessful, one has to go back and try something else.

This game behaves like the latter (I can't find a defense from white that needs busting.)

I'll let Zen decide if Zullil reveals his eval. I'll say mine is still -2.50 - yeah, but there's some -2.15 10Men positions that are completely winning with a straightforward plan (and I think black can even fool around in its way there: white can't do anything to stop it), so I wouldn't mind getting in those (as opposed to -3.60 positions that are drawn, but all of them have something in common... so they should be easy to avoid unless I'm dumb.)

The problem: White can't hold both the b and d pawns, one will be taken away. Afterwards, if the h pawn is traded for the other, and a rook is traded, the resulting position is won for black. That's all, and one doesn't require high depth to see it...

[jp]

You are revealing too much!

Better not stuff up and draw now.

[Ovyron]

Haha, I don't think I can make any comment that helps Zen whatsoever.

The game started at the point at which Zen can resign as soon as he realizes I've seen how this is won (which can be done after seeing some 30 variations, at low depth, because the way we get there mostly doesn't matter).

[Zenmastur]

12.Rxd4

I'm playing this without much analysis (remaining) at all. I had expected 11.Rd2 Kh7 12.Qd4 Qxd4 12.Rd4 Kg7 13.x Kf8, but it seems I'm basically just a tempo ahead...

[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4r3/5pk1/1q1r1p1p/1p1Pn2Q/1Pp4P/6P1/5PB1/R3R1K1 b - -"]

1... f5 2. Qd1 Rdd8 3. Re3 f4 4. gxf4 Nd3 5. Rxd3 cxd3 6. Qxd3 Qf6 7. Rd1 Qxf4 8. Qxb5 Qxh4 9. Qc5 Re6 10. Qc3+ Rf6 11. Qd4 Qxd4 12. Rxd4 Kf8

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/3P4/1P1R4/8/5PB1/6K1 w - -

1... f5 2. Qd1 Rdd8 3. Re3 f4 4. gxf4 Nd3 5. Rxd3 cxd3 6. Qxd3 Qf6 7. Rd1 Qxf4 8. Qxb5 Qxh4 9. Qc5 Re6 10. Qc3+ Rf6 11. Qd4 Qxd4 12. Rxd4 Kf8 13.b5

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/3P4/1P1R4/8/5PB1/6K1 w - -

12.Rxd4

I'm playing this without much analysis (remaining) at all. I had expected 11.Rd2 Kh7 12.Qd4 Qxd4 12.Rd4 Kg7 13.x Kf8, but it seems I'm basically just a tempo ahead...

[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4r3/5pk1/1q1r1p1p/1p1Pn2Q/1Pp4P/6P1/5PB1/R3R1K1 b - -"]

1... f5 2. Qd1 Rdd8 3. Re3 f4 4. gxf4 Nd3 5. Rxd3 cxd3 6. Qxd3 Qf6 7. Rd1 Qxf4 8. Qxb5 Qxh4 9. Qc5 Re6 10. Qc3+ Rf6 11. Qd4 Qxd4 12. Rxd4 Kf8

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/3P4/1P1R4/8/5PB1/6K1 w - -

My Stockfish-dev has been searching this position now for many days (with 6-man tables, and with some forward/backward guidance supplied by me). I'm happy to share the current numerical eval, but only if both players give consent.

If you want to share the eval that's fine with me. It can't be any worse than what I'm seeing.

Regards,

Zenmastur

[zullil]

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/1P1P4/3R4/8/5PB1/6K1 b - - 0 13

My Stockfish-dev has been searching this position now for many days (with 6-man tables, and with some forward/backward guidance supplied by me). I'm happy to share the current numerical eval, but only if both players give consent.

If you want to share the eval that's fine with me. It can't be any worse than what I'm seeing.

Regards,

Zenmastur

OK, currently showing -6.46.

By the way, you forgot to post the fen for the position resulting from your move.

[Zenmastur]

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/1P1P4/3R4/8/5PB1/6K1 b - - 0 13

My Stockfish-dev has been searching this position now for many days (with 6-man tables, and with some forward/backward guidance supplied by me). I'm happy to share the current numerical eval, but only if both players give consent.

If you want to share the eval that's fine with me. It can't be any worse than what I'm seeing.

Regards,

Zenmastur

OK, currently showing -6.46.

By the way, you forgot to post the fen for the position resulting from your move.

I'd be happy if the evaluation was actually that good!

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/1P1P4/3R4/8/5PB1/6K1 b - - 0 13

[zullil]

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/1P1P4/3R4/8/5PB1/6K1 b - - 0 13

My Stockfish-dev has been searching this position now for many days (with 6-man tables, and with some forward/backward guidance supplied by me). I'm happy to share the current numerical eval, but only if both players give consent.

If you want to share the eval that's fine with me. It can't be any worse than what I'm seeing.

Regards,

Zenmastur

OK, currently showing -6.46.

By the way, you forgot to post the fen for the position resulting from your move.

I'd be happy if the evaluation was actually that good!

[d]3r1k2/5p2/5r1p/1P1P4/3R4/8/5PB1/6K1 b - - 0 13

Well, the theoretical evaluation is "Black wins". At least, that's my conjecture.

[Ovyron]

I'd be happy if the evaluation was actually that good!

Now I'd be curious to know how alternatives to 3...f4?! compared

Also, after the discussions on another thread, I'm making my protest against the PGN standard and removing '[SetUp "1"]' from the game notation, because as Dann has pointed out, stating a FEN should be enough to declare that the game is being started from... the FEN.

[FEN "4r3/5pk1/1q1r1p1p/1p1Pn2Q/1Pp4P/6P1/5PB1/R3R1K1 b - -"]

1... f5 2. Qd1 Rdd8 3. Re3 f4 4. gxf4 Nd3 5. Rxd3 cxd3 6. Qxd3 Qf6 7. Rd1 Qxf4 8. Qxb5 Qxh4 9. Qc5 Re6 10. Qc3+ Rf6 11. Qd4 Qxd4 12. Rxd4 Kf8 13. b5 Ke7

[d]3r4/4kp2/5r1p/1P1P4/3R4/8/5PB1/6K1 w - -

[Dann Corbit]

[FEN "4r3/5pk1/1q1r1p1p/1p1Pn2Q/1Pp4P/6P1/5PB1/R3R1K1 b - -"]

Another perhaps more surprising thing is that the above FEN PGN expression above is not allowed.
You have to have 0 1 appended like this:
[FEN "4r3/5pk1/1q1r1p1p/1p1Pn2Q/1Pp4P/6P1/5PB1/R3R1K1 b - - 0 1"]

You would *think* if there were no counters supplied it would be *assumed* as 0 1, but Noooooooooo!
You have to spell them out, even though almost all the time they are 0 1.