Nice testposition from Eigenmann

[Vinvin]

Sadly...

[fen]7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P2B2/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1[/fen]

However, by changing the place of the h rook, we can get many more positions. I'll try to work them out and find the best position...

Why not stick to this one and why "sadly"?

Anyhow, I think it's ok now.

After some Backward of lines after moves that were won or dubious before:

7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P2B2/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Crystal 251221:
...
3. = (0.00): 1.Bc1 Qc5+ 2.Rhf2 a5 3.Re1 Kh7 4.Be3 Qe5 5.Bd2 Qh5 6.Rg2 Kg8 7.Be3 Qe5 8.Bd2

How do you get 0.00 for 1.Bc1 ?

I get +10 with the line :

[White "W"]
[Black "B"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/p1p3p1/1p1p3p/6B1/2P5/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bc1 Qc5+ 2. d4 Qxc4 3. Bxh6 gxh6 4. Rxh6+ Kg7 5. Rh3 Qe6 6. Rg3+ Kh7 7.
Rf4 Qe1+ 8. Kg2 Qd2+ 9. Rf2 Qe1 10. Rf4 Qd2+ 11. Rf2 Qe1 12. Rh3+ Kg7 13.
Rhf3 Kh8 14. Rh3+ Kg7 15. Rhf3 Kh7 16. Kh2 Qe4 17. Rh3+ Kg8 18. Rg3+ Kh8
19. Rfg2 Qf4 20. Kg1 Qc1+ 21. Kf2 Qd2+ 22. Kf3 Qd3+ 23. Kf4 Qf1+ 24. Ke4
Qb1+ 25. Kd5 Qb5+ 26. Ke6 Qe8+ 27. Kf5 Qf7+ 28. Ke4 Qh7+ 29. Rg6 *

I used Crystal 3.2. Maybe Crystal 251221 is a bit buggy.

1.Bc1 Qxc3 meets 2.Bb2 because the h rook is at h2, so 1.Bc1 can be winning in that position. I'm considering changing the place of the h rook.

Oops, sorry, I didn't follow the whole thread.

[peter]

Sadly...

[fen]7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P2B2/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1[/fen]

However, by changing the place of the h rook, we can get many more positions. I'll try to work them out and find the best position...

Why not stick to this one and why "sadly"?

Anyhow, I think it's ok now.

After some Backward of lines after moves that were won or dubious before:

7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P2B2/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Crystal 251221:
...
3. = (0.00): 1.Bc1 Qc5+ 2.Rhf2 a5 3.Re1 Kh7 4.Be3 Qe5 5.Bd2 Qh5 6.Rg2 Kg8 7.Be3 Qe5 8.Bd2

How do you get 0.00 for 1.Bc1 ?

I get +10 with the line :

[White "W"]
[Black "B"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/p1p3p1/1p1p3p/6B1/2P5/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1"]

1. Bc1 Qc5+ 2. d4 Qxc4 3. Bxh6 gxh6 4. Rxh6+ Kg7 5. Rh3 Qe6 6. Rg3+ Kh7 7.
Rf4 Qe1+ 8. Kg2 Qd2+ 9. Rf2 Qe1 10. Rf4 Qd2+ 11. Rf2 Qe1 12. Rh3+ Kg7 13.
Rhf3 Kh8 14. Rh3+ Kg7 15. Rhf3 Kh7 16. Kh2 Qe4 17. Rh3+ Kg8 18. Rg3+ Kh8
19. Rfg2 Qf4 20. Kg1 Qc1+ 21. Kf2 Qd2+ 22. Kf3 Qd3+ 23. Kf4 Qf1+ 24. Ke4
Qb1+ 25. Kd5 Qb5+ 26. Ke6 Qe8+ 27. Kf5 Qf7+ 28. Ke4 Qh7+ 29. Rg6 *

I used Crystal 3.2. Maybe Crystal 251221 is a bit buggy.

1.Bc1 Qxc3 meets 2.Bb2 because the h rook is at h2, so 1.Bc1 can be winning in that position. I'm considering changing the place of the h rook.

You're talking about two different positions, Vincent is still at the original one of Walter's.
Of course you can try some more different positions still too, dear Hobacle, even if I don't quite understand why. The one with Bishop at f4 has single solution and is difficult enough for my pov.
Watching only from a distance now again, at least till you make up your mind, which one position you like best regards

[peter]

[fen]7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P2B2/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1[/fen]

Anyhow, I think it's ok now.

After some Backward of lines after moves that were won or dubious before:

7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P2B2/q1PP4/7R/5RK1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Crystal 251221:

Code: Select all

1. +-  (7.55): 1.Bxh6 gxh6 2.Rxh6+ Kg7 3.Rh2 Qxc3 4.Rg2+ Kh7 5.Rf7+ Kh8 6.Rf3 Qa1+ 7.Kh2 Qe5+ 8.Rfg3 Qf4 9.Re2 Qf1 10.Re4 Qf2+ 11.Rg2 Qf6 12.Kg3 Qg6+ 13.Kf3 Qf7+ 14.Ke2 Qh5+ 15.Reg4 Qe5+ 16.Kf2 Qf6+ 17.Kg1 Qa1+ 18.Kh2 Qf6 19.Rg5 Qf3 20.R2g3 Qe2+ 21.Kh3 Kh7 22.Kh4 Kh6 23.Rg6+ Kh7 24.Rg7+ Kh8 25.R7g5 Qh2+ 26.Rh3 Qf4+ 27.Kh5 Kh7 28.Rhg3 Qf6 29.Kg4 Qe6+ 30.Kf3 Kh6 31.Rg8 Qf6+ 32.Kg2 Qb2+ 33.Kh1 Qb1+ 34.Rg1 Qxd3 35.Rh8+ Qh7 36.Rxh7+ Kxh7 37.Kh2 a6 38.Kh3 c6 39.Rd1 Kg7 40.Rxd6 Kf7 41.Rxd7+ Ke8 42.Rd6 

2. =  (0.00): 1.Rg2 Qxc3 2.Bc1 Qd4+ 3.Rff2 Qa1 4.Rf1 

3. =  (0.00): 1.Bc1 Qc5+ 2.Rhf2 a5 3.Re1 Kh7 4.Be3 Qe5 5.Bd2 Qh5 6.Rg2 Kg8 7.Be3 Qe5 8.Bd2 

4. =  (0.00): 1.Rh3 Qxc3 2.Bxh6 gxh6 3.Rxh6+ Kg8 4.Rg6+ Kh8 

5. =  (0.00): 1.Bd2 a5 2.Re2 Qc5+ 3.Rff2 Qh5 4.Be3 Kh7 5.Rg2 Kg8 6.Bd4 g5 7.Re7 Qd1+ 8.Kh2 Qh5+ 

6. =  (0.00): 1.Be3 Qxc3 2.Bxh6 gxh6 3.Rxh6+ Kg8 4.Rg6+ Kh8 

I'm considering this one now:
7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/5RK1 w - - 0 1

Why?
What is this one any better for just with rook at h4 instead of h2?
Even if I don't think, that it will ruin singularity again, I just don't like to check and prove it being correct all over again. At least not until you give me reason to do so and promise not to come along with the next one at once again in return

[Hobacle]

At least not until you give me reason to do so and promise not to come along with the next one at once again in return

After all, I decided to use this one. It has been checked.

[fen]7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1[/fen]


1.Rf1!! h6 2.Bxh6!!

[peter]

At least not until you give me reason to do so and promise not to come along with the next one at once again in return

After all, I decided to use this one. It has been checked.

[fen]7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1[/fen]


1.Rf1!! h6 2.Bxh6!!

Now I see, what you were aiming for!



[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2022.02.16"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Hobacle's , FinalVersionOf"]
[Black "Walter's, Position"]
[Result "1-0"]
[Annotator "SF"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1"]
[PlyCount "123"]

1. Rf1 h6 (1... h5 2. Rxh5+ Kg8 3. Rc1) (1... Qc5+ 2. d4 Qxc4 3. Bh6) 2. Bxh6
gxh6 3. Rxh6+ Kg7 4. Rh2 Qxc3 5. Rg2+ Kh7 6. Rf7+ Kh8 7. Rf3 Qa1+ 8. Kh2 Qe5+
9. Rfg3 Qf4 10. Re2 Qf1 11. Re4 Qf2+ 12. Rg2 Qf6 13. Kg3 Qg6+ 14. Kf3 Qf7+ 15.
Ke2 Qh5+ 16. Reg4 Qe5+ 17. Kf2 Qf6+ 18. Kg1 Qa1+ 19. Kh2 Qf6 20. Rg5 Qf3 21.
R2g3 Qe2+ 22. Kh3 Kh7 23. Kh4 Kh6 24. Rg6+ Kh7 25. Rg7+ Kh8 26. R7g5 Qh2+ 27.
Rh3 Qf4+ 28. Kh5 Kh7 29. Rhg3 Qf6 30. Kg4 Qe6+ 31. Kf3 Kh6 32. Rg8 Qf6+ 33. Kg2
Qb2+ 34. Kh1 Qb1+ 35. Rg1 Qxd3 36. Rh8+ Qh7 37. Rxh7+ Kxh7 38. Kh2 a6 39. Kh3
c6 40. Rd1 Kg7 41. Rxd6 Kf7 42. Rxd7+ Ke8 43. Rd6 b5 44. cxb5 cxb5 45. Rxa6 b4
46. Kg3 Kd7 47. Rb6 b3 48. Kf4 Kc7 49. Rxb3 Kd6 50. Rb5 Ke6 51. Re5+ Kd6 52.
Kf5 Kd7 53. Rd5+ Kc7 54. Ke5 Kc6 55. Ke6 Kc7 56. Rc5+ Kb7 57. Kd7 Kb6 58. Re5
Kb7 59. Re6 Kb8 60. Kc6 Ka8 61. Kb6 Kb8 62. Re8# 1-0
[/pgn]

Some output after some Forward- Backward:

7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 11 64 POPCNT30:

Code: Select all

1. +-  (3.48): 1.Rf1 h5 2.Rxh5+ Kg8 3.Rc1 a6 4.Rg5 b5 5.cxb5 axb5 6.Rxb5 Qa6 7.Rd5 Qa7+ 8.d4 Qa8 9.Rg5 Qf3 10.Bd2 Qd3 11.Rg2 c5 12.dxc5 dxc5 13.Rf1 Qa6 14.Rg3 d5 15.Be3 Qb6 16.Bf2 Qb5 17.Re1 Kf7 18.Re5 Qb1+ 19.Kg2 Qa2 20.Rd3 d4 21.Rxc5 dxc3 22.Rf3+ Kg6 23.Rcxc3 Qe6 24.Rg3+ Kh7 25.Kg1 Qd5 26.Rh3+ Kg8 27.Rcd3 Qe6 28.Rd8+ Kf7 29.Rf3+ Kg6 30.Rg3+ Kh7 31.Be3 Qe4 32.Bd2 Qe5 33.Rh3+ Kg6 

2. =  (0.10): 1.Be3 h6 2.Kh1 Kh7 3.Rg1 Qa5 4.c5 Qa2 5.Rg2 Qd5 6.cxb6 axb6 7.Kg1 Qf5 8.Kh2 Qd5 9.d4 Qf3 10.Rh3 Qd5 11.Bf4 Qf5 12.Rh4 Qf7 13.Kg1 Qf6 14.Rhg4 Qe7 15.Kf2 Qf7 16.Kg3 Qe7 17.Kh3 Kh8 18.Rxg7 Qxg7 19.Rxg7 Kxg7 20.Kg4 Kf6 21.Bxh6 Ke6 22.Kf3 Kd5 23.Ke3 Kc4 24.Kd2 c5 25.Bg7 b5 26.Ke3 cxd4+ 27.cxd4 b4 28.Kd2 b3 29.Bh8 d5 30.Bf6 

As for exact DTM and possible dual, (don't think so, but that would be something, that could degenerate to kinda work yet still to be really fully sure) better check again, but in the meantime I'll send my next email to Walter regards

[peter]

At least not until you give me reason to do so and promise not to come along with the next one at once again in return

After all, I decided to use this one. It has been checked.

[fen]7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1[/fen]


1.Rf1!! h6 2.Bxh6!!

After these 7 moves

7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1

1. Bd2 h6 2. Kf2 Qa2 3. Ke2 d5 4. Rg1 dxc4 5. Rxc4 b5 6. Re4 Qd5 7. Rgg4 Qh5

and lots and lots of Forward- Backward, I get this output:

7k/p1pp2p1/7p/1p5q/4R1R1/2PP4/3BK3/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 100222:

8.c4 Kh7 9.Bc3 g5 10.cxb5 d5 11.Ra4 Qe8+ 12.Kd2 Qxb5 13.Rxa7 Qc5 14.Rga4 Kg6 15.Bd4 Qb5 16.R7a5 Qb7 17.Kc2 Kh5 18.Bc3 c6 19.Ra1 Qb8 20.Rh1+ Kg6 21.Ra6 Qb5 22.Rha1 Qb7 23.Bd4 Kf5 24.Kc3 Kg4 25.Rg1+ Kh5 26.Rh1+ Kg6 27.Rb6 Qc7 28.Kb3 Kf5 29.Rxh6 c5 30.Bc3 Qg3 31.Rhf6+ Kg4 32.Kc2 c4 33.dxc4 Qg2+ 34.Kb3 dxc4+ 35.Kxc4 Qe4+ 36.Kb3 Qb1+ 37.Ka3 Qc1+ 38.Kb4 Kg3 39.Rfd6 g4 40.Rd3+ Kg2 41.Rd2+ Kg3 42.Be5+ Kh4 43.Rh6+ Kg5 44.Rhd6 Kf5 45.R2d5 Qb1+ 46.Ka3
+- (3.57) Depth: 47/77 00:01:06 3566MN, tb=3315630

Further Backward let's the eval get even less proving again, but that could be lack of hash only as well.
It's your turn to check again, dear Hobacle, maybe the first 7 moves are buggy and maybe the rest of the output- line is so too, yet at its end it's lost for Black.
Can't prove it right nor can I prove it wrong, so I'm outa here again regards

[peter]

At least not until you give me reason to do so and promise not to come along with the next one at once again in return

After all, I decided to use this one. It has been checked.

[fen]7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1[/fen]


1.Rf1!! h6 2.Bxh6!!

After these 7 moves

7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1

1. Bd2 h6 2. Kf2 Qa2 3. Ke2 d5 4. Rg1 dxc4 5. Rxc4 b5 6. Re4 Qd5 7. Rgg4 Qh5

and lots and lots of Forward- Backward, I get this output:

7k/p1pp2p1/7p/1p5q/4R1R1/2PP4/3BK3/8 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 100222:

8.c4 Kh7 9.Bc3 g5 10.cxb5 d5 11.Ra4 Qe8+ 12.Kd2 Qxb5 13.Rxa7 Qc5 14.Rga4 Kg6 15.Bd4 Qb5 16.R7a5 Qb7 17.Kc2 Kh5 18.Bc3 c6 19.Ra1 Qb8 20.Rh1+ Kg6 21.Ra6 Qb5 22.Rha1 Qb7 23.Bd4 Kf5 24.Kc3 Kg4 25.Rg1+ Kh5 26.Rh1+ Kg6 27.Rb6 Qc7 28.Kb3 Kf5 29.Rxh6 c5 30.Bc3 Qg3 31.Rhf6+ Kg4 32.Kc2 c4 33.dxc4 Qg2+ 34.Kb3 dxc4+ 35.Kxc4 Qe4+ 36.Kb3 Qb1+ 37.Ka3 Qc1+ 38.Kb4 Kg3 39.Rfd6 g4 40.Rd3+ Kg2 41.Rd2+ Kg3 42.Be5+ Kh4 43.Rh6+ Kg5 44.Rhd6 Kf5 45.R2d5 Qb1+ 46.Ka3
+- (3.57) Depth: 47/77 00:01:06 3566MN, tb=3315630

Further Backward let's the eval get even less proving again, but that could be lack of hash only as well.
It's your turn to check again, dear Hobacle, maybe the first 7 moves are buggy and maybe the rest of the output- line is so too, yet at its end it's lost for Black.
Can't prove it right nor can I prove it wrong, so I'm outa here again regards

Yet can't simply can't leave it for good like that neither of course

After one more night for the rest of the Bakcward, let's just hope, 5...b5 (?) is wrong and ...Kh7 holds. (At least 5...b5 with following 7...Qh5(?) was crucial, 7...g5 instead would have made it some harder for White already, yet it seems it still looses too)

7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1

1. Bd2 h6 2. Kf2 Qa2 3. Ke2 d5 4. Rg1 dxc4 5. Rxc4 Kh7 with Backward to 1.Bd2 h6:

7k/p1pp2p1/1p1p3p/8/2P4R/q1PP4/3B4/3R2K1 w - - 0 1

Analysis by Stockfish 100222:

2.Kf2 Qa2 3.Ke2 d5 4.Rf1 dxc4 5.Rxc4 b5 6.Re4 Qd5 7.Rg4 a5 8.Rfg1 a4 9.Rxg7 Qe6+ 10.Be3 Qa2+ 11.Kf3 Qd5+ 12.Kf2 Qa2+
= (0.00) Depth: 85/23 05:56:55 640783MN, tb=1080645345

E.g.:

7k/p1pp2pp/1p1p4/8/2P2B1R/q1PP4/8/3R2K1 w - - 0 1

1. Bd2 h6 2. Kf2 Qa2 3. Ke2 d5 4. Rg1 dxc4 5. Rxc4 Kh7 6. Rxc7 Qe6+ 7. Be3 Qa2+
8. Bd2 Qe6+ 9. Be3 Qa2+ 10. Kd1 Qa1+ 11. Kd2 Qa2+ 12. Kc1 Qa1+ 13. Kc2 Qa2+ 14.
Kd1 Qa1+ 15. Kd2 Qa2+ 16. Kc1 Qa1+ 17. Kc2 Qa2+ 18. Kd1 3fold

So at least it's not me who's the one to cook it, which I'd been really sorry for. If it does work correctly, it's one of the puzzles I know with most game- playing- practice- near starting position of such difficulty, congrats

[Hobacle]

So at least it's not me who's the one to cook it, which I'd been really sorry for. If it does work correctly, it's one of the puzzles I know with most game- playing- practice- near starting position of such difficulty, congrats

What does Walter Eigenmann say? Is he satisfied? Even if this one is cooked or not good enough, I still have some alternatives. But at least, I think it's okay.

BTW, I don't think this one is any harder than viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74051&start=50#p894508, which is also a playable position.

[peter]

What does Walter Eigenmann say? Is he satisfied? Even if this one is cooked or not good enough, I still have some alternatives. But at least, I think it's okay.

BTW, I don't think this one is any harder than viewtopic.php?f=2&t=74051&start=50#p894508, which is also a playable position.

No definitive answer from Walter so far.
Difficulty is always difficult to judge, depends to a wide range on who's concerned.
I like this one for three reasons: the nearness to practical game- playing, the long way to go and the challenge to exclude the atlernative moves to the solution to deny them.
Are you sure for yourself, that it's dual- free?

[Hobacle]

Are you sure for yourself, that it's dual- free?

Just in the first several moves, the answer is yes.