Is there anymore unsolved positions at all!?

[zullil]

Opening position is solved already: DRAW. Only 1.g4?? loses.

Proof?

[Werewolf]

I wonder if 1.e4 g5 is lost for black

[Vinvin]

[d]4q1kn/2Bp1p2/1N1PpPp1/1P2P1P1/2N3b1/6p1/1P4Pb/7K w - - 0 1

If the best move is all that is needed, then there seems to be a "lot" of best moves.

I took "best" to mean "key". Have you followed perejaslav's link to the discussion of this study?

I assume many engines will find the initial key sequence, and then get stuck for a long time at 0.00. Like here.

info depth 127 seldepth 41 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 1930533338907 nps 63402350 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 30448924 pv c4a5 g4e2 a5b7 e2b5 b7d8 b5e2 b2b4 e2b5 b6c8 b5c6 c8a7 g8h7 c7b6 e8g8 b6a5 c6a8 a5c7 a8d5 b4b5 d5b7 b5b6 b7a6 a7b5 a6b5 b6b7 g8e8 b7b8q b5c4 b8b4 c4d5 b4h4 h7g8 h4h6 e8f8 h6h3 f8e8 h3h4 e8f8 c7b6 f8e8

Here's the winning idea :

[pgn][Event "Computer Chess Test Suite"]
[Site "EPD2diag V1.5"]
[Date "2020.01.27"]
[White "Hard-Talkchess-2020.077"]
[Black "Na5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "4q1kn/2Bp1p2/1N1PpPp1/1P2P1P1/2N3b1/6p1/1P4Pb/7K w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]

1. Na5 Be2 2. Nb7 Bd3 3. Nd8 Bxb5 4. b3 Qf8 5. Na4 Kh7 6. Nc3 Bf1 7. b4 Bd3 8. b5 Bxb5 9. Nxb5 Qe8 10. Nd4 Kg8 11. Nf3 Kh7 12. Nxh2 gxh2 13. Kxh2 Kg8 14. Kg3 Kh7 15. Kf3 Kg8 16. Ke4 Kh7 17. Kd4 Kg8 18. Kc5 Kh7 19. Kb6 Kg8 20. Kb7 Kh7 21. Bb6 Kg8 22. Nc6 Kh7 23. Nb8 Kg8 24. Kc7 Kh7 25. Nxd7 1-0[/pgn]

[Nay Lin Tun]

Forget fastest mates only best move is interesting now. With monster hardware / special engines and/or multimove mode are all positions published here solved? I don't remember lately any unsolved.

This one comes to mind:

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

This is not a good position.

A good position is a position when you are convinced that all top engines (including special engines to solve problems) fail to find the right move.

This has been theoretically solved long time ago, "chess is just an extremely drawish game"

1. There is no single game in chess history where one side win without blunders from the other side.

2. Additionally, drawish tendency is too high that either side is able to do a couple of useless moves and is still draw. ( e.g 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 is still fine and likely 32 men TB draw).

3. More bold claim, one side is free to blunder one unimportant pawn (e.g throwing away "a" and "b" pawns) and is still likely draw. Tcec data showed that many human gambits that end permanent pawn loss from one side is still draw ( e.g Benko, Even gambit)

[zullil]

Forget fastest mates only best move is interesting now. With monster hardware / special engines and/or multimove mode are all positions published here solved? I don't remember lately any unsolved.

This one comes to mind:

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

This is not a good position.

A good position is a position when you are convinced that all top engines (including special engines to solve problems) fail to find the right move.

This has been theoretically solved long time ago,

"theoretically" is certainly the wrong word here.

[duncan]

Forget fastest mates only best move is interesting now. With monster hardware / special engines and/or multimove mode are all positions published here solved? I don't remember lately any unsolved.

This one comes to mind:

[d]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

This is not a good position.

A good position is a position when you are convinced that all top engines (including special engines to solve problems) fail to find the right move.

This has been theoretically solved long time ago, "chess is just an extremely drawish game"

1. There is no single game in chess history where one side win without blunders from the other side.

2. Additionally, drawish tendency is too high that either side is able to do a couple of useless moves and is still draw. ( e.g 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 is still fine and likely 32 men TB draw).

3. More bold claim, one side is free to blunder one unimportant pawn (e.g throwing away "a" and "b" pawns) and is still likely draw. Tcec data showed that many human gambits that end permanent pawn loss from one side is still draw ( e.g Benko, Even gambit)

(not that I think it is likely) None of your statements negates the possibility of a forced pawn capture by move 35. It is just that Humans are too stupid to see it.

[drewdrew]

[d]4q1kn/2Bp1p2/1N1PpPp1/1P2P1P1/2N3b1/6p1/1P4Pb/7K w - - 0 1

If the best move is all that is needed, then there seems to be a "lot" of best moves.

I took "best" to mean "key". Have you followed perejaslav's link to the discussion of this study?

I assume many engines will find the initial key sequence, and then get stuck for a long time at 0.00. Like here.

info depth 127 seldepth 41 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 1930533338907 nps 63402350 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 30448924 pv c4a5 g4e2 a5b7 e2b5 b7d8 b5e2 b2b4 e2b5 b6c8 b5c6 c8a7 g8h7 c7b6 e8g8 b6a5 c6a8 a5c7 a8d5 b4b5 d5b7 b5b6 b7a6 a7b5 a6b5 b6b7 g8e8 b7b8q b5c4 b8b4 c4d5 b4h4 h7g8 h4h6 e8f8 h6h3 f8e8 h3h4 e8f8 c7b6 f8e8

After a (long) while I get:
info depth 111 seldepth 40 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 4802448924330 nps 395357553 hashfull 468 tbhits 5121581803 time 12147103 pv c4a5 g8h7 a5b7 g4e2 b7d8 e2b5 b6c8 b5a6 c8a7 e8g8 b2b3 g8e8 b3b4 a6b7 c7a5 b7a8 b4b5 h7g8 a5c7 a8d5 b5b6 d5e4 a7b5 g8h7 b5c3 e4c6 c3e2 c6d5 e2f4 d5e4 f4d3 e4d3 b6b7 d3c4 b7b8q e8f8 c7b6 f8e8
info depth 112 currmove c4a5 currmovenumber 1
info depth 112 seldepth 50 multipv 1 score cp 8 lowerbound nodes 17005964673455 nps 416383688 hashfull 574 tbhits 19875148207 time 40842053 pv c4a5
info depth 111 currmove c4a5 currmovenumber 1
info depth 112 seldepth 50 multipv 1 score cp 16 lowerbound nodes 17015768413244 nps 416405432 hashfull 574 tbhits 19885266638 time 40863464 pv c4a5

This iteration is taking a very long time though...

[Dann Corbit]

This has been theoretically solved long time ago, "chess is just an extremely drawish game"

Unless it is a win for white or a win for black. "We guess it is probably a draw" is not theoretically solved. Even if it is a good guess.

1. There is no single game in chess history where one side win without blunders from the other side.

Loss on time

2. Additionally, drawish tendency is too high that either side is able to do a couple of useless moves and is still draw. ( e.g 1. Nf3 Nf6 2. Ng1 is still fine and likely 32 men TB draw).

A 32 man TB file is physically impossible. And there is a 2 move checkmate. So it depends a lot on what the two useless moves are, n'est ce pas?

3. More bold claim, one side is free to blunder one unimportant pawn (e.g throwing away "a" and "b" pawns) and is still likely draw. Tcec data showed that many human gambits that end permanent pawn loss from one side is still draw ( e.g Benko, Even gambit)

That is only a demonstration that there are probably sound gambits (not even a proof that there are sound gambits). There are also unsound gambits.

[zullil]

[d]4q1kn/2Bp1p2/1N1PpPp1/1P2P1P1/2N3b1/6p1/1P4Pb/7K w - - 0 1

If the best move is all that is needed, then there seems to be a "lot" of best moves.

I took "best" to mean "key". Have you followed perejaslav's link to the discussion of this study?

I assume many engines will find the initial key sequence, and then get stuck for a long time at 0.00. Like here.

info depth 127 seldepth 41 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 1930533338907 nps 63402350 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 30448924 pv c4a5 g4e2 a5b7 e2b5 b7d8 b5e2 b2b4 e2b5 b6c8 b5c6 c8a7 g8h7 c7b6 e8g8 b6a5 c6a8 a5c7 a8d5 b4b5 d5b7 b5b6 b7a6 a7b5 a6b5 b6b7 g8e8 b7b8q b5c4 b8b4 c4d5 b4h4 h7g8 h4h6 e8f8 h6h3 f8e8 h3h4 e8f8 c7b6 f8e8

After a (long) while I get:
info depth 111 seldepth 40 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 4802448924330 nps 395357553 hashfull 468 tbhits 5121581803 time 12147103 pv c4a5 g8h7 a5b7 g4e2 b7d8 e2b5 b6c8 b5a6 c8a7 e8g8 b2b3 g8e8 b3b4 a6b7 c7a5 b7a8 b4b5 h7g8 a5c7 a8d5 b5b6 d5e4 a7b5 g8h7 b5c3 e4c6 c3e2 c6d5 e2f4 d5e4 f4d3 e4d3 b6b7 d3c4 b7b8q e8f8 c7b6 f8e8
info depth 112 currmove c4a5 currmovenumber 1
info depth 112 seldepth 50 multipv 1 score cp 8 lowerbound nodes 17005964673455 nps 416383688 hashfull 574 tbhits 19875148207 time 40842053 pv c4a5
info depth 111 currmove c4a5 currmovenumber 1
info depth 112 seldepth 50 multipv 1 score cp 16 lowerbound nodes 17015768413244 nps 416405432 hashfull 574 tbhits 19885266638 time 40863464 pv c4a5

This iteration is taking a very long time though...

Would be interesting to see the next PV ... if/when it arrives.

[h1a8]

[d]4q1kn/2Bp1p2/1N1PpPp1/1P2P1P1/2N3b1/6p1/1P4Pb/7K w - - 0 1

If the best move is all that is needed, then there seems to be a "lot" of best moves.

I took "best" to mean "key". Have you followed perejaslav's link to the discussion of this study?

I assume many engines will find the initial key sequence, and then get stuck for a long time at 0.00. Like here.

info depth 127 seldepth 41 multipv 1 score cp 0 nodes 1930533338907 nps 63402350 hashfull 1000 tbhits 0 time 30448924 pv c4a5 g4e2 a5b7 e2b5 b7d8 b5e2 b2b4 e2b5 b6c8 b5c6 c8a7 g8h7 c7b6 e8g8 b6a5 c6a8 a5c7 a8d5 b4b5 d5b7 b5b6 b7a6 a7b5 a6b5 b6b7 g8e8 b7b8q b5c4 b8b4 c4d5 b4h4 h7g8 h4h6 e8f8 h6h3 f8e8 h3h4 e8f8 c7b6 f8e8

Here's the winning idea :

[pgn][Event "Computer Chess Test Suite"]
[Site "EPD2diag V1.5"]
[Date "2020.01.27"]
[White "Hard-Talkchess-2020.077"]
[Black "Na5"]
[Result "1-0"]
[FEN "4q1kn/2Bp1p2/1N1PpPp1/1P2P1P1/2N3b1/6p1/1P4Pb/7K w - - 0 1"]
[SetUp "1"]

1. Na5 Be2 2. Nb7 Bd3 3. Nd8 Bxb5 4. b3 Qf8 5. Na4 Kh7 6. Nc3 Bf1 7. b4 Bd3 8. b5 Bxb5 9. Nxb5 Qe8 10. Nd4 Kg8 11. Nf3 Kh7 12. Nxh2 gxh2 13. Kxh2 Kg8 14. Kg3 Kh7 15. Kf3 Kg8 16. Ke4 Kh7 17. Kd4 Kg8 18. Kc5 Kh7 19. Kb6 Kg8 20. Kb7 Kh7 21. Bb6 Kg8 22. Nc6 Kh7 23. Nb8 Kg8 24. Kc7 Kh7 25. Nxd7 1-0[/pgn]

It's not simple to me how white wins afterward.