The ENGINES CRACKERS 2 (Update)

[Hobacle]

3 runs with 4 engines for the 19 positions :
- Crystal 3.2 x64 avx2
- ShashChess17.1-x86-avx2
- SugaR AI ICCF 2.40 avx2
- Stockfish_21091708_x64_avx2

Have always had a question: why not try Sting?

[Vinvin]

.

stammering,...yes, i know...u wanna say that im wimmering around...

No, I want to say that you stammered. And I recommend: think first, then formulate clearly.

but my story is this: in pos 2 Ba3 is not better than Nxa4...no 24h...your turn..give sth...

My story is that you should first do a 10-hour Stockfish analysis here before you join the discussion on this position.
Until then, I assume that Carlsen's move is marginally superior.

20 hours (AMD 16 cores) with 2 best moves :

Code: Select all

FEN: r2q1rk1/1p2p1bp/2np2p1/2n2b2/p1P5/1PN1QN1P/PB2BPP1/3R1RK1 w - - 0 1

Crystal 3.2 x64 avx2:
...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 41/64	3:35:17	321.791.598k	24.911k	+0,77	1.Nxa4 Nxa4 2.Bxg7 Kxg7 3.bxa4 Rxa4 4.c5 Rf6 5.Bb5 Re4 6.Qd2 Qd7 7.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 8.Nxe1 Qe6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qc1 Qb4 12.Qa1 Qf4 13.Qb2 Be6 14.Nd3 Qc4 15.a3 c5 16.Rd2 Qd4 17.Qxd4 cxd4 18.Nc5 Bf7 19.Rxd4 Rc6 20.Ne4 Rc2 21.Rd3 h6 22.Re3 Rc1+ 23.Kh2 Ra1 24.Nc5 g5 25.Rxe7
 41/59	3:35:17	321.791.598k	24.911k	+0,76	1.Ba3 Qa5 2.b4 Nxb4 3.Bxb4 Qxb4 4.Nd5 Qa5 5.Nxe7+ Kh8 6.Nxf5 gxf5 7.Bd3 Qc3 8.Rfe1 Rab8 9.h4 Kg8 10.Bf1 Qxe3 11.Rxe3 f4 12.Re2 Rfe8 13.Rc2 Rbd8 14.Be2 Re4 15.Kf1 Bf6 16.Ng5 Bxg5 17.hxg5 Re5 18.Bf3 Rde8 19.Rcc1 Ne4 20.a3 Rxg5 21.Rd4 Rge5 22.Bxe4 Rxe4 23.Rxd6 R8e6 24.Rxe6 Rxe6 25.Rb1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 42/64	10:53:18	967.982.598k	24.694k	+0,62	1.Nxa4 Nxa4 2.Bxg7 Kxg7 3.bxa4 Rxa4 4.c5 Rf6 5.Bb5 Re4 6.Qd2 Qd7 7.Bxc6 bxc6 8.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 9.Nxe1 Qe6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qc1 Qb4 12.Qa1 Qf4 13.Qb2 c5 14.Rd5 Qb4 15.Qe5 Qe4 16.Rxc5 Qxe5 17.Rxe5 Ra6 18.Rxe7+ Kg8 19.Nf3 Rxa2 20.Nd4 Ra5 21.g4 Bb1 22.Kh2 h6 23.Rd7 Ba2 24.Rd6 Kg7 25.f4
 42/68	10:53:18	967.982.598k	24.694k	+0,71	1.Ba3 Qa5 2.b4 Nxb4 3.Bxb4 Qxb4 4.Nd5 Qa5 5.Nxe7+ Kh8 6.Nxf5 gxf5 7.Bd3 Qc3 8.Rfe1 Rab8 9.h4 Kg8 10.Bf1 Ne4 11.Qf4 Rbe8 12.Bd3 Kh8 13.Re2 Qf6 14.Rb1 Bh6 15.Ng5 Nxg5 16.hxg5 Qxg5 17.Qxg5 Bxg5 18.Rxb7 Rxe2 19.Bxe2 Bf6 20.Rb6 Kg7 21.Rxd6 Rb8 22.Rd7+ Kg6 23.Bd3 Rb2 24.c5 Rxa2 25.f4 Bc3 26.c6 Ba5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 43/72	11:23:57	1.013.212.678k	24.690k	+0,61	1.Nxa4 Nxa4 2.Bxg7 Kxg7 3.bxa4 Rxa4 4.c5 Rf6 5.Bb5 Re4 6.Qd2 Qd7 7.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 8.Nxe1 Qe6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qc1 Qb4 12.Qa1 Qf4 13.Qb2 c5 14.Rd5 Qb4 15.Qe5 Qe4 16.Rxc5 Qxe5 17.Rxe5 Ra6 18.Rxe7+ Kg8 19.Nf3 Rxa2 20.Nd4 Ra5 21.g4 Bb1 22.Kh2 h6 23.Nc6 Ra6 24.Ne5 g5 25.Nd7 Ba2 26.Kg3 Bf7 27.f3
 43/54	11:23:57	1.013.212.678k	24.690k	+0,70	1.Ba3 Qa5 2.Nb5 axb3 3.axb3 Rf6 4.Bxc5 Re6 5.Qc1 Rxe2 6.Bd4 Nxd4 7.Nbxd4 Re4 8.Nxf5 Qxf5 9.Rd5 Qe6 10.Ng5 Bh6 11.Nxe6 Bxc1 12.Nc7 Rc8 13.Rxc1 Rxc7 14.Rb5 Rf4 15.Ra1 Rf5 16.Raa5 Rfc5 17.Rxc5 Rxc5 18.Rxc5 dxc5 19.Kh2 Kf7 20.Kg3 Kf6 21.Kf4 e5+ 22.Ke4 Ke6 23.g3 Kd6 24.g4 Ke6 25.h4 h5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 44/56	14:10:41	1.260.242.242k	24.690k	+0,66	1.Ba3 Qa5 2.Nb5 axb3 3.axb3 Rf6 4.Bxc5 Re6 5.Qc1 Rxe2 6.Bd4 Nxd4 7.Nbxd4 Re4 8.Nxf5 Qxf5 9.Rd5 Qe6 10.Ng5 Bh6 11.Nxe6 Bxc1 12.Nc7 Rc8 13.Rxc1 Rxc7 14.Rb5 Rf4 15.Ra1 Rf5 16.Rb6 Kf7 17.Ra7 d5 18.cxd5 Rxd5 19.Rbxb7 Rc1+ 20.Kh2 Re5 21.Ra4 Rb1 22.Rf4+ Kg7 23.b4 Rb3 24.h4 h5 25.g3 Re1 26.b5 Rbb1 27.Kg2
 44/59	14:10:41	1.260.242.242k	24.690k	+0,66	1.Nxa4 Nxa4 2.Bxg7 Kxg7 3.bxa4 Rxa4 4.c5 Rf6 5.Bb5 Re4 6.Qd2 Qd7 7.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 8.Nxe1 Qe6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qc1 Qb4 12.Qa1 Qf4 13.Qb2 Be6 14.Nd3 Qc4 15.Rd2 c5 16.a3 Qd4 17.Qxd4 cxd4 18.Nc5 Bf7 19.Rxd4 Rc6 20.Ne4 Rc2 21.Rd7 Kf8 22.Kh2 h6 23.Kg3 g5 24.Rd2 Rc1 25.a4 Ra1 26.Nc5
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 44/56	20:24:01	1.812.782.478k	24.683k	+0,64	1.Ba3 Qa5 2.Nb5 axb3 3.axb3 Rf6 4.Bxc5 Re6 5.Qc1 Rxe2 6.Bd4 Nxd4 7.Nbxd4 Re4 8.Nxf5 Qxf5 9.Rd5 Qe6 10.Ng5 Bh6 11.Nxe6 Bxc1 12.Nc7 Rc8 13.Rxc1 Rxc7 14.Rb5 Rf4 15.Ra1 Rf5 16.Rb6 Kf7 17.Ra7 d5 18.cxd5 Rxd5 19.Rbxb7 Rc1+ 20.Kh2 Re5 21.Ra4 Rb1 22.Rf4+ Kg7 23.b4 Rb3 24.h4 h5 25.g3 Re1 26.b5 Rbb1 27.Kg2
 45/53	20:24:01	1.812.782.478k	24.683k	+0,65	1.Nxa4 Nxa4 2.Bxg7 Kxg7 3.bxa4 Rxa4 4.c5 Rf6 5.Bb5 Re4 6.Qd2 Qd7 7.Rfe1 Rxe1+ 8.Nxe1 Qe6 9.Bxc6 bxc6 10.cxd6 Qxd6 11.Qc1 Qb4 12.Qa1 Qf4 13.Qb2 Be6 14.Nd3 Qc4 15.Rd2 c5 16.a3 Qd4 17.Qxd4 cxd4 18.Nc5 Bf7 19.Rxd4 Rc6 20.Ne4 Ra6 21.Rd3 Ra5 22.Rc3 h5 23.f3 h4 24.Kh2 Bd5 25.Rc5

[Glarean]

Thx for your analysis, but:

The Engines Crackers 002, M. Carlsen vs G.Jones, London 2012
https://glarean-magazin.ch/2021/09/20/c ... s-puzzles/

Analysis by Stockfish 170921:

1. +/- (0.73): 16.La3 Da5 17.b4 Sxb4 18.Lxb4 Dxb4 19.Sd5 Da5 20.Sxe7+ Kh8 21.Sxf5 Txf5 22.Txd6 (etc.)
2. +/= (0.66): 16.Sxa4 Sxa4 17.Lxg7 Kxg7 18.bxa4 Txa4 19.c5 Tf6 20.Lb5 Te4 21.Dd2 Dd7 22.Tfe1 (etc.)
3. = (0.15): 16.bxa4 Db6 17.Dc1 Se4 18.La1 Lxc3 19.Lxc3 Txa4 20.Ld4 Sxd4 21.Txd4 Dc7 22.Ld1 (etc.)
4. = (0.00): 16.g4 Ld7 17.Sxa4 Lxb2 18.Sxb2 Txa2 19.Sa4 Dc8 20.Sg5 h6 21.Se4 Sxe4 22.Dxe4 (et.)

Ply 57 (Ryzen7/16Th.)

Vivat Carlsen!

[Vinvin]

...
Analysis by Stockfish 170921:

1. +/- (0.73): 16.La3 Da5 17.b4 ...
2. +/= (0.66): 16.Sxa4 Sxa4 17.Lxg7 ...
Ply 57 (Ryzen7/16Th.)

So Ba3 is not clearly stronger than Nxa4. That means it's not a good test position.

[Glarean]

...
Analysis by Stockfish 170921:
1. +/- (0.73): 16.La3 Da5 17.b4 ...
2. +/= (0.66): 16.Sxa4 Sxa4 17.Lxg7 ...
Ply 57 (Ryzen7/16Th.)

So Ba3 is not clearly stronger than Nxa4. That means it's not a good test position.

You're looking at it wrong: The CRACKERS are NOT test positions, and THE ENGINES CRACKERS is NOT a test suite...
So, very clearly or less clearly: Ba3 seems to be better than Nxa4.

[Spliffjiffer]

we get this wrong, ok, np...this is a computer-stuff-forum and not a forum for "what is the move that makes humans most problems"...if the engine gives 0.00 for one move and 0.00 for the other and u argument that "it is clearly superior to maintain chances with this "only" move" than u missed also sth

[Glarean]

we get this wrong, ok, np...this is a computer-stuff-forum and not a forum for "what is the move that makes humans most problems"...if the engine gives 0.00 for one move and 0.00 for the other and u argument that "it is clearly superior to maintain chances with this "only" move" than u missed also sth

Nope, nowhere was there talk of analyses with 0.00 vs 0.00. Ba3 is a little bit better than Nxa4. And after a very long calculation, the engines confirm this - period.

[Spliffjiffer]

good. you were right and i were wrong ...end of this dump conversation

[Spliffjiffer]

sry, i forgot sth...thank u for your time u invested in having a more clear sight into this position, Vinvin :, your analyysis is always a time of pleasure...now u have a powerful CPU, but that neverer made any conclusions to me...thx for what u provided....i like that very much...thx a lot !!

[Vinvin]

...
Analysis by Stockfish 170921:
1. +/- (0.73): 16.La3 Da5 17.b4 ...
2. +/= (0.66): 16.Sxa4 Sxa4 17.Lxg7 ...
Ply 57 (Ryzen7/16Th.)

So Ba3 is not clearly stronger than Nxa4. That means it's not a good test position.

You're looking at it wrong: The CRACKERS are NOT test positions, and THE ENGINES CRACKERS is NOT a test suite...
So, very clearly or less clearly: Ba3 seems to be better than Nxa4.

If the naming "test positions" bother you, I can reformulate : 0.07 pawn in the eval is not enough to conclude a move is clearly better than another one. The most accurate conclusion for this position is that 13.Ba3 and 13.Nxa4 are about the same strength.