What a move 11.a3!! Aronian-Carlsen_Norway Chess 2017

[yanquis1972]

you continue to claim fortress, but i really think you are missing things that computers are seeing, hence moves you feel ridiculous. in your fortress position, how does black hold against the threat of g4?

if there are several variables in play (& not one simple idea i can replicate) when you have time could you demonstrate against SF or komodo?

I already posted plan, please see other message.

white can do nothing to improve.

thanks lyudmil, your plan is both detailed & clear but i can't transfer it to actual practice. i'm quite tired atm so it's possible i am missing something i'd normally be able to spot (i'm not thinking at all flexibly atm), but i still hope you will try 1v1 against an engine & post the result here. i think you are underestimating the g4 push (or simply overlooking Kd3?).

sample pgn:

[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.06.17"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4k3/6B1/2p1p3/2P2p1p/3PnP2/4PK2/6PP/8 w - -"]

1. h3 Nd2+ 2. Ke2 Ne4 3. Bh6 Kf7 4. Kd3 Ke8 5. Bg5 Kf7
6. Bh4 Kg6 7. g4 *[/pgn]

[Jeroen]

I received this game from a friend.

I asked him also to play the rematch. Again the same story: Komodo quickly cruises through Stockfish's defense and wins easily. At move 32 it was already over.

Thus we also have 8-0 in the Bishop vs Knight ending, which says enough. Amusingly the LTC matches ("should make black's defense easier", Lyudmil) lead to the exact opposite result: black not only loses all games, but also a lot quicker. And black also loses far more quickly than with the rooks on.

One final advise for Lyudmil: FIRST investigate/analyse/play games, THEN draw conclusions. Not the other way around.

[pgn][Event "Eindspel"]
[Site "Test-PC"]
[Date "2017.06.17"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Komodo 10.4"]
[Black "Stockfish 8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D45"]
[Annotator "1.57;1.67"]
[PlyCount "85"]
[TimeControl "5400"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 a6 6. b3
Bb4 7. Bd2 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. O-O Qe7 10. Bc2 Rd8 11. a3 Bxa3 12. Rxa3 Qxa3 13.
c5 Ne4 14. Bxe4 dxe4 15. Ng5 h6 16. Ngxe4 a5 17. Qc2 a4 18. bxa4 Qb4 19. Nd6
Qa5 20. Nd5 Qxa4 21. Ne7+ Kf8 22. Qxa4 Rxa4 23. Nexc8 Ra8 24. Rb1 Rdxc8 25.
Nxc8 Rxc8 26. Rxb7 Rb8 27. Rxb8+ Nxb8 {Both last book move} 28. Kf1 {1.57/35
152} Ke7 {1.67/47 551 (f6)} 29. e4 {1.78/36 99 (Ba5)} Na6 {1.75/46 170} 30. Ke2
{1.83/37 78} f5 {1.75/55 134 (Nc7)} 31. Bf4 {2.03/39 169 (Kd3)} fxe4 {2.15/63
1090 (Nb4)} 32. Ke3 {2.46/44 154} Kf6 {3.05/56 629 (Nb4)} 33. Kxe4 {2.90/41 87}
Nb4 {3.05/55 17} 34. h4 {3.02/44 129} Nd5 {3.45/50 201} 35. g4 {3.53/43 174
(f3)} Nc3+ {3.87/50 272} 36. Kf3 {3.68/42 73 (Kd3)} Ke7 {4.48/49 255 (Nb5)} 37.
h5 {3.75/41 147} Kf8 {4.84/45 132 (Kf7)} 38. Bg3 {4.12/43 161} Kf7 {5.42/46 170
} 39. Kf4 {4.39/44 253} Ke7 {5.60/35 15 (Nd1)} 40. Bh4+ {6.42/37 76 (Ke3)} Kd7
{7.27/41 124} 41. g5 {7.24/37 97 (Ke5)} Nd5+ {14.08/39 415 (Nb5)} 42. Ke4 {
9.90/34 51 (Ke5)} Nc3+ {20.83/37 235 (hxg5)} 43. Ke5 {11.06/35 44 (Kf4)} 1-0[/pgn]

[Jeroen]

are you looking at what you are posting?

this output/variations are completely irrelevant.

obvious, you have managed to screw MacBrain beyond repair.

What is obvious, is that you have BY FAR posted the worst analysis in this thread. I have never seen so many instant losers in one position, posted by one and the same person. Thus, you clearly have hugely undermined your analysis "expertise", single-handedly.

It is clear to me that you FIRST shout something, and only then start to analyse the consequences. Then you are only interested in maintaining your faulty view, instead of doing an OBJECTIVE analysis.

You clearly are a waste of my time and resources. It is totally pointless to engage in a serious discussion with you.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

you continue to claim fortress, but i really think you are missing things that computers are seeing, hence moves you feel ridiculous. in your fortress position, how does black hold against the threat of g4?

if there are several variables in play (& not one simple idea i can replicate) when you have time could you demonstrate against SF or komodo?

I already posted plan, please see other message.

white can do nothing to improve.

thanks lyudmil, your plan is both detailed & clear but i can't transfer it to actual practice. i'm quite tired atm so it's possible i am missing something i'd normally be able to spot (i'm not thinking at all flexibly atm), but i still hope you will try 1v1 against an engine & post the result here. i think you are underestimating the g4 push (or simply overlooking Kd3?).

sample pgn:

[pgn]
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2017.06.17"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "4k3/6B1/2p1p3/2P2p1p/3PnP2/4PK2/6PP/8 w - -"]

1. h3 Nd2+ 2. Ke2 Ne4 3. Bh6 Kf7 4. Kd3 Ke8 5. Bg5 Kf7
6. Bh4 Kg6 7. g4 *[/pgn]

well, I did not tell you to be so inflexible.

sometimes, of course, you must change plan, depending on tactical conditions.

after h3 Nd2 Ke2 Ne4 Bh6 (Kd3 Nf2 and back to e4), black already changes plan with Nf6 Bg5 Nd5:

[d]4k3/8/2p1p3/2Pn1pBp/3P1P2/4P2P/4K1P1/8 w - - 0 5

and this is another fortress.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

ok, I am fed up with it.

so far, 264 analyses, 264 draws.

If this would be true, we also had to doubt about your ability to run a chess program at all... that is a completely ridiculous result from the given position.

ridiculous, but verifiable.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I received this game from a friend.

I asked him also to play the rematch. Again the same story: Komodo quickly cruises through Stockfish's defense and wins easily. At move 32 it was already over.

Thus we also have 8-0 in the Bishop vs Knight ending, which says enough. Amusingly the LTC matches ("should make black's defense easier", Lyudmil) lead to the exact opposite result: black not only loses all games, but also a lot quicker. And black also loses far more quickly than with the rooks on.

One final advise for Lyudmil: FIRST investigate/analyse/play games, THEN draw conclusions. Not the other way around.

[pgn][Event "Eindspel"]
[Site "Test-PC"]
[Date "2017.06.17"]
[Round "2"]
[White "Komodo 10.4"]
[Black "Stockfish 8"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D45"]
[Annotator "1.57;1.67"]
[PlyCount "85"]
[TimeControl "5400"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 a6 6. b3
Bb4 7. Bd2 Nbd7 8. Bd3 O-O 9. O-O Qe7 10. Bc2 Rd8 11. a3 Bxa3 12. Rxa3 Qxa3 13.
c5 Ne4 14. Bxe4 dxe4 15. Ng5 h6 16. Ngxe4 a5 17. Qc2 a4 18. bxa4 Qb4 19. Nd6
Qa5 20. Nd5 Qxa4 21. Ne7+ Kf8 22. Qxa4 Rxa4 23. Nexc8 Ra8 24. Rb1 Rdxc8 25.
Nxc8 Rxc8 26. Rxb7 Rb8 27. Rxb8+ Nxb8 {Both last book move} 28. Kf1 {1.57/35
152} Ke7 {1.67/47 551 (f6)} 29. e4 {1.78/36 99 (Ba5)} Na6 {1.75/46 170} 30. Ke2
{1.83/37 78} f5 {1.75/55 134 (Nc7)} 31. Bf4 {2.03/39 169 (Kd3)} fxe4 {2.15/63
1090 (Nb4)} 32. Ke3 {2.46/44 154} Kf6 {3.05/56 629 (Nb4)} 33. Kxe4 {2.90/41 87}
Nb4 {3.05/55 17} 34. h4 {3.02/44 129} Nd5 {3.45/50 201} 35. g4 {3.53/43 174
(f3)} Nc3+ {3.87/50 272} 36. Kf3 {3.68/42 73 (Kd3)} Ke7 {4.48/49 255 (Nb5)} 37.
h5 {3.75/41 147} Kf8 {4.84/45 132 (Kf7)} 38. Bg3 {4.12/43 161} Kf7 {5.42/46 170
} 39. Kf4 {4.39/44 253} Ke7 {5.60/35 15 (Nd1)} 40. Bh4+ {6.42/37 76 (Ke3)} Kd7
{7.27/41 124} 41. g5 {7.24/37 97 (Ke5)} Nd5+ {14.08/39 415 (Nb5)} 42. Ke4 {
9.90/34 51 (Ke5)} Nc3+ {20.83/37 235 (hxg5)} 43. Ke5 {11.06/35 44 (Kf4)} 1-0[/pgn]

IS IT SO DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND THAT ENGINES DO NOT HAVE FORTRESS DETECTION AND THEREFORE WOULD PREFER LOSING LINES WITH SMALLER SCORE INSTEAD OF THE DRAWING ONES WITH LARGER SCORE?

is it really that difficult?

current top engines are completely unsuitabel for that position, regardless of the time control.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

no general analysis observations, Jeroen?

you are certain I am right.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

are you looking at what you are posting?

this output/variations are completely irrelevant.

obvious, you have managed to screw MacBrain beyond repair.

What is obvious, is that you have BY FAR posted the worst analysis in this thread. I have never seen so many instant losers in one position, posted by one and the same person. Thus, you clearly have hugely undermined your analysis "expertise", single-handedly.

It is clear to me that you FIRST shout something, and only then start to analyse the consequences. Then you are only interested in maintaining your faulty view, instead of doing an OBJECTIVE analysis.

You clearly are a waste of my time and resources. It is totally pointless to engage in a serious discussion with you.

I always recognise that tone, when you know you have been proven wrong.

but that is about natural, because, as said, I have spent 5 times more time on learning chess than you, so you should not be that much offended, rather greatful for being in touch with a higher expertise, even only for a limited time...

no matter how much you underline and bold, the position is still a DRAW, and you can not prove otherwise.

[IQ]

I guess it is about time to ban this one from the forum...

[d]1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 2

DRAW

show me a possible winning continuation, and I will refute it.

Fantastic that you accept my challenge: I play e4
Your move....

[fastgm]

ok, I am fed up with it.

so far, 264 analyses, 264 draws.

did nit find a single line where white can win.

e4 Nd7 Bf4 (Ba5) f5

Ok, let's focus on the endgame without rooks:

[d]1n3k2/5pp1/2p1p2p/2P5/3P4/4P3/3B1PPP/6K1 w - - 0 28

and now your line is 28.e4 Nd7 29.Bf4 f5

[d]5k2/3n2p1/2p1p2p/2P2p2/3PPB2/8/5PPP/6K1 w - f6 0 30

29...f5? is a decisive mistake because now comes the unexpectedly devastating breakthrough 30.d5!

30.d5! and Stockfish's evaluation is already beyond +3 !! Stockfish on High-End Hardware + Tablebases is unbelievable strong in endgames and inexorable with mistakes.
73/103 18:12 89.844.288k 82.214k +3,44 30.d5 cxd5 31.exd5 exd5 32.c6 Nb6 33.h4 h5 34.Kf1 Ke7 35.Ke2 Na4 36.Be3 Nc3+ 37.Kf3 Nb5 38.Kf4 d4 39.Bd2 Kf6 40.Ba5 Nd6

[d]5k2/3n2p1/2p1p2p/2PP1p2/4PB2/8/5PPP/6K1 b - - 0 30

30.d5! cxd5 31.exd5 exd5 32.c6 Nb6 33.h4

[d]5k2/6p1/1nP4p/3p1p2/5B1P/8/5PP1/6K1 b - h3 0 33

Komodo 11.01 64-bit:
54 1:02:19 102.886.913k 27.516k -3,27 33. ... h5 34.Kf1 Ke7 35.Ke2 Na4 36.Be3 Kd6 37.Kf3 Kxc6 38.Kf4 Kb5 39.Kxf5 Kc4 40.Kg6

33...h5 34.Kf1 Ke7 35.Ke2

[d]8/4k1p1/1nP5/3p1p1p/5B1P/8/4KPP1/8 b - - 3 35

35...Na4 36.Be3 Kd6 37.Kf3 Kxc6 38.Kf4 Kb5 39.Kxf5 Kc4 40.Kg6

[d]8/6p1/6K1/3p3p/n1k4P/4B3/5PP1/8 b - - 2 40

Stockfish 170617 64 BMI2:
63/97- 32:06 188.073.204k 97.621k -17,33 40. ... d4 41.Bc1

or

36...Nc3+ 37.Kf3 Nb5 38.Kf4 Kf6

[d]8/6p1/2P2k2/1n1p1p1p/5K1P/4B3/5PP1/8 w - - 10 39

Komodo 11.01 64-bit:
52 09:22 19.792.497k 35.159k +6,10 39.Bb6 g6 40.c7 Nd6 41.Lc5 Nc8 42.Ke3 Ke5 43.Kd3 d4 44.Kc4 d3 45.Kxd3 Kd5 46.Bd4 Ke6 47.Be3 Kd5 48.Kc3 Ke5 49.f3 Kd5 50.Kb4 Kc6 51.Bf4 Sb6 52.Be5 Sd5+ 53.Kc4 Nb6+ 54.Kd4 Kd7

55.Kc5 Nc8 56.Bg3 Ne7 57.Lf4 Nc8 58.Be5 f4 59.Bxf4 Ne7 60.Bg5

or 38...d4 39.Bd2 Kf6

[d]8/6p1/2P2k2/1n3p1p/3p1K1P/8/3B1PP1/8 w - - 2 40

Stockfish 170617 64 BMI2:
62/93+ 27:41 142.347.123k 85.691k +9,28 40.Ba5

[pgn][Event "Computer chess game"]
[Site "FastGM"]
[Date "2017.06.17"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Aronian"]
[Black "Carlsen"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "D45"]
[WhiteElo "2000"]
[BlackElo "2000"]
[PlyCount "77"]
[EventDate "2017.??.??"]

1. d4 d5 2. c4 c6 3. Nf3 Nf6 4. Nc3 e6 5. e3 a6 6. b3 Bb4 7. Bd2 Nbd7 8. Bd3
O-O 9. O-O Qe7 10. Bc2 Rd8 11. a3 Bxa3 12. Rxa3 Qxa3 13. c5 Ne4 14. Bxe4 dxe4
15. Ng5 h6 16. Ngxe4 a5 17. Qc2 a4 18. bxa4 Qb4 19. Nd6 Qa5 20. Nd5 Qxa4 21.
Ne7+ Kf8 22. Qxa4 Rxa4 23. Nexc8 Ra8 24. Rb1 Rdxc8 25. Nxc8 Rxc8 26. Rxb7 Rb8
27. Rxb8+ Nxb8 28. e4 Nd7 29. Bf4 f5 30. d5 cxd5 31. exd5 exd5 32. c6 Nb6 33.
h4 h5 34. Kf1 Ke7 35. Ke2 Na4 36. Be3 Nc3+ 37. Kf3 Nb5 38. Kf4 Kf6 39. Bb6 1-0[/pgn]

A person alone without a machine could hardly find all these variants. but tablebases are incorruptible.

Conclusion: This endgame is lost after your moves 28.e4 Nd7 29.Bf4 f5?

Andreas