mmt Vs. Ovyron (G4 D5 BG2)

[Uri Blass]

Of course it is not mate in 3 so 3.Rxf5 is not mate but the idea is simply to post a single line when white may have faster mate but if black does not follow the single line you then white can also mate in at most 35 moves.

But I didn't save the line, and it has been overwritten to a mate in 34 already. Some other mate in 35 line wouldn't work because Zullil wants to see the one that I found in 1.5 days, this mate in 34 was found after 17 days. And, anyway, I'm checking these lines for correctness myself, their correctness is irrelevant because the only correctness that matters is from the line I'll send for the challenge. Zullil kind of spoiled the challenge after announcing a mate in 28 (so I know what not to send), but I have not found a line to send anyway (all the lines I've seen could be improved trivially. Who knows if I'll make it to 28.)

To prove 1.Rh8+ is a mate in 28 you only need to solve 2 positions to mate in at most 26 moves

1.Rh8+ Kf7 2.Rf1+ Qf6
1.Rh8+ Kf7 2.Rf1+ Qf5

I believe that I have a solution for the first one that has to be a correct line by my definition assuming there is a solution for the second line because black cannot delay the mate to more than 28 moves by choosing the second line.

[Ovyron]

I believe that I have a solution for the first one

Well, the only reason I've been doing this is because I want to see Zenmastur defend 1.g4, but it doesn't have to be against me. I wonder if we can arrange something where you replace me for the challenge and you attack his 1.g4 ? We'd need to ask Zenmastur what he thinks but if you solved it to a mate much faster than I did you could attack his 1.g4 much better than I could.

[zullil]

Of course it is not mate in 3 so 3.Rxf5 is not mate but the idea is simply to post a single line when white may have faster mate but if black does not follow the single line you then white can also mate in at most 35 moves.

But I didn't save the line, and it has been overwritten to a mate in 34 already. Some other mate in 35 line wouldn't work because Zullil wants to see the one that I found in 1.5 days, this mate in 34 was found after 17 days. And, anyway, I'm checking these lines for correctness myself, their correctness is irrelevant because the only correctness that matters is from the line I'll send for the challenge. Zullil kind of spoiled the challenge after announcing a mate in 28 (so I know what not to send), but I have not found a line to send anyway (all the lines I've seen could be improved trivially. Who knows if I'll make it to 28.)

To prove 1.Rh8+ is a mate in 28 you only need to solve 2 positions to mate in at most 26 moves

1.Rh8+ Kf7 2.Rf1+ Qf6
1.Rh8+ Kf7 2.Rf1+ Qf5

I believe that I have a solution for the first one that has to be a correct line by my definition assuming there is a solution for the second line because black cannot delay the mate to more than 28 moves by choosing the second line.

This whole thing has become rather ridiculous. Why Ovyron is even continuing is beyond me. At the pace he's going, most of us will be dead before he even reaches mate in 30. Much less mate in 28. Which, by the way, is not minimal. At least based on a private message from someone I trust ...

17 days to get to mate-in-34 is beyond terrible. This would take Stockfish maybe eight hours on a strong system, probably with no human guidance at all.

[Ovyron]

Why Ovyron is even continuing is beyond me.

The deal is that after I'm done Zenmastur defends 1.g4. That's all I care about.

[Alayan]

Zenmastur proved his point of your hardware being a real limitation, however.

[Ovyron]

For this specific problem (and all fastest mates, I guess), yes.

Though I wonder if when he issued the challenge I just let my engine unassisted analyse the position with 2 cores, if it'd have been making faster progress than with my approach. If my approach is so bad perhaps it would have taken me this long even with faster hardware.

Though at least I had a power outage in the interim, which would have made me lose everything an unassisted engine would have produced, the point could be that my engine assistance is just hurting how fast the engine can get to it, which proves my point that this is unrelated to playing chess (where I'd have played 1.Rh8 and 2.Rf1 long time ago and seen what my opponent's queen move would have been, and only needed to check it instead of both. In a game I don't need the fastest mate or checking all my opponent's defenses, 1 mating line that defeats the defense chosen by my opponent gives me the point. And I can do that with 20 seconds per position, so my hardware doesn't limit me to do what matters in games.)

[jp]

I'm less convinced now that Zenmastur's test is qualitatively the same and therefore makes his point.

If you want to prove White mates in N, you are (in most circumstances) forced to go through all of Black's defences. If you hypothetically have some special skill for pruning, it won't help you other than to find White's moves.

To find a best line of play, one always needs to consider all possible defenses by the opponent. Zenmastur's test simply has the advantage of giving a very clear meaning to "best" (i.e., mating in a minimal number of moves) and also allowing for precise evaluations of all leaf positions (as mate-in-N). Why would some "special skill for pruning" not also apply here?

Well, without checking, I don't think Zenmastur's test called for a proof (so I suppose one could just use special pruning skills), but it feels like it does need a mate tree to be worked through. No human's hypothetical special skills can tell the difference between mate in 12 or 15 down one line, but they may (and surely do for top superGMs) tell which lines must be lost, etc. There's a clear difference for humans, at least.

BTW, I could afford better hardware, sure. I have to because I don't know how long my CPU will last, it's getting 10 years old this year

But millions of people (who may well want to play CC) cannot. This general question is surely more interesting than, for example, some billionaire's ability to buy a supercomputer.

[Ovyron]

But millions of people (who may well want to play CC) cannot. This general question is surely more interesting than, for example, some billionaire's ability to buy a supercomputer.

My claim is that this billionaire can save some bucks by learning better analysis methods. Methods that would allow them to find the only winning line in a position to beat their opponent. Methods that would allow them to find the only saving move in a position they were losing. They don't need better hardware for this and thus buying it would be a waste of money, regardless of how much they have.

I'd have found the fastest mating line in Zenmastur's challenge if it was the only winning line, by "magically" tagging the rest as drawn. I can't "magically" tag a mate as faster or slower than another without checking it, so as you say, this involves radically different skills, to the point where faster hardware could out-speed any human method to get to the fastest mate, but that would not be useful on a chess game.

[Uri Blass]

For this specific problem (and all fastest mates, I guess), yes.

Though I wonder if when he issued the challenge I just let my engine unassisted analyse the position with 2 cores, if it'd have been making faster progress than with my approach. If my approach is so bad perhaps it would have taken me this long even with faster hardware.

Though at least I had a power outage in the interim, which would have made me lose everything an unassisted engine would have produced, the point could be that my engine assistance is just hurting how fast the engine can get to it, which proves my point that this is unrelated to playing chess (where I'd have played 1.Rh8 and 2.Rf1 long time ago and seen what my opponent's queen move would have been, and only needed to check it instead of both. In a game I don't need the fastest mate or checking all my opponent's defenses, 1 mating line that defeats the defense chosen by my opponent gives me the point. And I can do that with 20 seconds per position, so my hardware doesn't limit me to do what matters in games.)

No

It does not prove the point and I suspect that unassisted hardware also beat your approach in playing normal chess games.
Of course mate position is not relevant and opening position may be too easy to draw so it will prove nothing.

We need a position that is better for white relative to the opening position but not as good as the advantage black has after 1.g4
Maybe something like 1.e4 a6 when maybe unassisted engine can beat you 1.5:0.5

[Uri Blass]

But millions of people (who may well want to play CC) cannot. This general question is surely more interesting than, for example, some billionaire's ability to buy a supercomputer.

My claim is that this billionaire can save some bucks by learning better analysis methods. Methods that would allow them to find the only winning line in a position to beat their opponent. Methods that would allow them to find the only saving move in a position they were losing. They don't need better hardware for this and thus buying it would be a waste of money, regardless of how much they have.

I'd have found the fastest mating line in Zenmastur's challenge if it was the only winning line, by "magically" tagging the rest as drawn. I can't "magically" tag a mate as faster or slower than another without checking it, so as you say, this involves radically different skills, to the point where faster hardware could out-speed any human method to get to the fastest mate, but that would not be useful on a chess game.

I do not understand why you think that you could find the fastest mate if it was the only winning line.

I see no way to find practically that a move is the only winning move.
Here is a simple challange.

[d]4b1k1/8/5n1r/4N3/8/5Q2/3K4/8 w - - 0 1

There is only one winning move with DTZ<100(There are some moves that are practically a draw by the 50 move rule because DTZ>=100 that is called a cursed win)

Can you practically find the winning move and prove the other moves are a draw when you do not use the syzygy tablebases that have the solution.

I did not try it but I believe that it is not a simple problem.
Maybe unassisted engine without tablebases can find the right line and I did not test it.