The future shift

[zullil]

[d]2b2rk1/5ppp/2q5/1n1pPPP1/2pP1N1P/1pP4B/1Q6/R6K w - - 0 10

But, the above position is won, no doubt about that, if you do not have any counterplay, you simply lose the game, there is not a single exception to this rule.

Maybe someone can help me to point how white wins, or I will do that when I am in better shape.
I can suggest now more moves, but there is no guarantee at all I will not got again wrong.

The above position is won for white, 100% sure.

Let's stop now. Obviously SF thinks the above is drawn. We can resume later/tomorrow.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

OK, I am afraid this will be it for today.

As we are discussing a position, and not playing a game, I expected much more meaningful contribution, possibly someone suggesting how white wins, but all I get is virulent attacks for trying to prove the obvious.

Many thanks to Louis and his wonderful SF, they are the only ones who deserve my complete admiration.

When I am able, I will get back to this position, just before white's h5.

[zullil]

OK, I am afraid this will be it for today.

As we are discussing a position, and not playing a game, I expected much more meaningful contribution, possibly someone suggesting how white wins, but all I get is virulent attacks for trying to prove the obvious.

Many thanks to Louis and his wonderful SF, they are the only ones who deserve my complete admiration.

When I am able, I will get back to this position, just before white's h5.

You're welcome. I rarely spend time carefully following games, so I enjoy these online explorations. I posted the key position in its own thread, to see what suggestions are offered. And, to be honest, you've made more contributions to SF than I have. I'm just supplying the hardware.

[peter]

+1 Albert.

But the point to me as for Lyudmil's trials to criticize engines' evals is always the same, as well as the positions he brings along for that aims once and again might be (to me they really are interesting most of the times): he wants to surprise all of us with the one and only super- move, but he obviously uses too little hardware- time and or forward- backward- analysing once and again, in the way of a used engine- output reader and able to do so modern chessplayer.
He might be good over the board, but to discuss positions, plans and evals of engines and of human ones, you have to talk about lines, not about single moves.

If he lacks this kind of patience for his own hardware- software- combination, why not have some PMs with Louis before coming to a conclusion instead of these childish flame- wars against "the engine", which btw isn't the "instance of instances" without good use by a good corr.- player still neither at all of course, if it's that, what he always wants to show us, and he is right about that, why than not do it in the simple and thorough way of a good corr.- player before telling "the whole truth" to the marveled captive audience?


No eval of an engine can be interpreted nor judged without comparing the corresponding output- pvs with the ones, you make for yourself after analysing.
That's the only thing to discuss, evals in correspondance with lines, everything else is simply bogus

[cdani]

If you want I can ask to a friend Grand Master.

That would be interesting. Please do so if you can with
[d]2bq1rk1/5ppp/n7/3pPPPN/2pP4/1pP5/6BP/2Q2RK1 b - - 0 1

Thanks, Daniel.

SF is the strongest chess playing entity ever, but a grandmaster's assessment would certainly be informative.

Hi!
So I asked Oscar de la Riva (GM) 2507.

He immediately (less than one second ) recognized the position as related to the game of Anand-Carlsen. Even he remembered a lot of ideas of it, specially the attacking ones

I asked him to think a little about the position as if he does not know nothing about it.

He noted that preferred the white pieces, as the activity seems more promising and the passed pawn is not a threat for the moment. Also that the black knight needs some moves to for example attack c3.

But in general the position cannot be assessed without length analysis, specially of tactical ideas.

[zullil]

If you want I can ask to a friend Grand Master.

That would be interesting. Please do so if you can with
[d]2bq1rk1/5ppp/n7/3pPPPN/2pP4/1pP5/6BP/2Q2RK1 b - - 0 1

Thanks, Daniel.

SF is the strongest chess playing entity ever, but a grandmaster's assessment would certainly be informative.

Hi!
So I asked Oscar de la Riva (GM) 2507.

He immediately (less than one second ) recognized the position as related to the game of Anand-Carlsen. Even he remembered a lot of ideas of it, specially the attacking ones

I asked him to think a little about the position as if he does not know nothing about it.

He noted that preferred the white pieces, as the activity seems more promising and the passed pawn is not a threat for the moment. Also that the black knight needs some moves to for example attack c3.

But in general the position cannot be assessed without length analysis, specially of tactical ideas.

Thanks for doing this.

[peter]

OK, I am afraid this will be it for today.

As we are discussing a position, and not playing a game, I expected much more meaningful contribution, possibly someone suggesting how white wins, but all I get is virulent attacks for trying to prove the obvious.

Don't dare telling me I had not contributed meaningful here.

I gave you an even then almost complete enough analysis in a .pgn just two days ago, you obviously didn't even have a look at it, or you wouldn't have to have so many meaningless trials simply looking for the one lucky punch against the machine.

As long as you are not able to talk about lines don't you ever dare asking for meaningful contribution, obviously meaningful to you is only, what fits into your wishful thinking, that's the point.
You're simply not able to consider it possible you were wrong, whilst you are just claiming this was a clearly won position for White.

It is not.

Maybe it's not easy to prove it's forced remis, but it would be your part to show a win to prove your claim of a won position.

At this point I already had copied and pasted the updated version of my analysis- .pgn, but I erased it again, you wouldn't have looked at it neither again and probably nobody else would have done so, it has grown much too big till now anyhow, I would have to reduce the variants to a meaningful amount, but that's the real point about this whole thing here and so many others like this one:

What is meaningful about a position, Lyudmil?

About this one you keep on saying it's won for White.
To prove that, a single line would be enough, if there was no provable error within.
As long as you don't have such a single winning line, you can keep on saying, it's won, but the more you try and the less you succeed to find one, the less is the probability that this was a clearly won position.

I don't even say, there couldn't be lines found with White to win, of course there are some, I found enough of them by myself, I even showed some of them, didn't I?

But they all had something in common: Black blundered somewhere.

Bring along your blunder- free winning line and let us then see, if there could be still found some blunders within.

BTW that's the really interesting thing of this position and of many others without clearly provable outcome: Black can blow that half point in many very tricky ways, but that's it, if Black plays blunder-free, White has to be confident with remis at a very high probability, that's all you can say for sure indeed and maybe one should be able to live with such not quite distinguishable things too.

What I'm accusing you of and why I maybe have written a little rude or oversarcastic now and then, which I'd like to apologize for, is this, Lyudmil:

You keep on telling us this was a clearly won position for White, but you didn't even give it a single try to show us a single winning line of yours that bring you to your stubborn opinion.

That's no good style of analysing, evaluating, critcising evals of engines (which must be seen in correspondance with the respective output- pvs always of course too).
That's simply not convincing and not helpful if you are asking for meaningful contributions.

Rote Karte, Lyudmil

[Vladimir Xern]

[d] 8/8/4k3/4r3/4R3/4K3/8/8 w - -

How long for your silly, inept engines to evaluate this position as clearly won for White?

We'll play it out until Stockfish can see the obvious. Make sure you let it analyze for as long as you can. My first move is 1. Rxe5.

[d] 8/8/4k3/4R3/8/4K3/8/8 b - -

As you can see, there are four lines with a 5 pawn advantage for White, and maybe one line with about equal score. That obviously means that this is a general win for White. This is certainly not an equal position, even if SF does not crack.

What does the latest Stockfish say after a few hours? 1...Kxe5 with a 0.00 score?

[d] 8/8/8/4k3/8/4K3/8/8 w - -

Ah, I can see the draw now. I must have messed up somewhere. There are so many moves to analyze, and I have a headache. Let's go back to the initial position.

[d] 8/8/4k3/4r3/4R3/4K3/8/8 w - -

Why will no one believe me? Someone just needs to help me prove the obvious, that this is won for White.