MoveOrdering--

[stegemma]

[d] r5nk/pp1br2p/2p1p3/3p4/3P4/2NB2R1/PPP3PP/2K2R2 w - - 2 22


Don't know what your engine or piece square table says about the rank of move Nc3-b1 in the move ordering. My chess book says Nc3-b1!!

Maybe is going to d2 and then f3, to control e5 square?

Yes these moves were played. Stockfish does not see Nb1. Perhaps engines only understand tactical play or easy strategic play.

Position is taken from Lasker-Pillsbury Paris 1900. Lasker was world chess champion at that time.

Wow... so I think as Lasker!

Ok just for you Stefano. Find the next Lasker move. Stockfish finds it at depth 28 but rejects it. My book gives it two exclamation marks.

[d]r1br3k/pp2Npbp/6p1/4p1P1/5P1P/2n1B3/PPP5/R3KB1R w KQ - 2 18

Ok ok... I'm just one thousandth of Lasker... but maybe f5?

[zullil]

Ok just for you Stefano. Find the next Lasker move. Stockfish finds it at depth 28 but rejects it. My book gives it two exclamation marks.

[d]r1br3k/pp2Npbp/6p1/4p1P1/5P1P/2n1B3/PPP5/R3KB1R w KQ - 2 18

Ok ok... I'm just one thousandth of Lasker... but maybe f5?

Yes, that's probably best. But Lasker played 18. h5.

[pgn]
[Event "Cambridge Springs"]
[Site "Cambridge Springs, PA USA"]
[Date "1904.04.28"]
[EventDate "1904.04.25"]
[Round "3.3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "William Ewart Napier"]
[ECO "B34"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "69"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 d6 7.h3
Nf6 8.g4 O-O 9.g5 Ne8 10.h4 Nc7 11.f4 e5 12.Nde2 d5 13.exd5
Nd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd5 15.Nf5 Nxc3 16.Qxd8 Rxd8 17.Ne7+ Kh8 18.h5
Re8 19.Bc5 gxh5 20.Bc4 exf4 21.Bxf7 Ne4 22.Bxe8 Bxb2 23.Rb1
Bc3+ 24.Kf1 Bg4 25.Bxh5 Bxh5 26.Rxh5 Ng3+ 27.Kg2 Nxh5 28.Rxb7
a5 29.Rb3 Bg7 30.Rh3 Ng3 31.Kf3 Ra6 32.Kxf4 Ne2+ 33.Kf5 Nc3
34.a3 Na4 35.Be3 1-0[/pgn]

[zullil]

Ok just for you Stefano. Find the next Lasker move. Stockfish finds it at depth 28 but rejects it. My book gives it two exclamation marks.

[d]r1br3k/pp2Npbp/6p1/4p1P1/5P1P/2n1B3/PPP5/R3KB1R w KQ - 2 18

Ok ok... I'm just one thousandth of Lasker... but maybe f5?

Yes, that's probably best. But Lasker played 18. h5.

[pgn]
[Event "Cambridge Springs"]
[Site "Cambridge Springs, PA USA"]
[Date "1904.04.28"]
[EventDate "1904.04.25"]
[Round "3.3"]
[Result "1-0"]
[White "Emanuel Lasker"]
[Black "William Ewart Napier"]
[ECO "B34"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "69"]

1.e4 c5 2.Nc3 Nc6 3.Nf3 g6 4.d4 cxd4 5.Nxd4 Bg7 6.Be3 d6 7.h3
Nf6 8.g4 O-O 9.g5 Ne8 10.h4 Nc7 11.f4 e5 12.Nde2 d5 13.exd5
Nd4 14.Nxd4 Nxd5 15.Nf5 Nxc3 16.Qxd8 Rxd8 17.Ne7+ Kh8 18.h5
Re8 19.Bc5 gxh5 20.Bc4 exf4 21.Bxf7 Ne4 22.Bxe8 Bxb2 23.Rb1
Bc3+ 24.Kf1 Bg4 25.Bxh5 Bxh5 26.Rxh5 Ng3+ 27.Kg2 Nxh5 28.Rxb7
a5 29.Rb3 Bg7 30.Rh3 Ng3 31.Kf3 Ra6 32.Kxf4 Ne2+ 33.Kf5 Nc3
34.a3 Na4 35.Be3 1-0[/pgn]

Stockfish:

Code: Select all

info depth 42 seldepth 65 multipv 1 score cp 98 nodes 31685208577 nps 31311412 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 time 1011938 pv f4f5 g6f5 b2c3 c8e6 f1h3 f5f4 h3e6 f7e6 e3c5 g7f8 e1e2 d8e8 c5d6 f8e7 d6e5 h8g8 a1d1 e8d8 h1f1 a8c8 d1d8 c8d8 f1f4 d8d5 e5b8 d5a5 a2a4 g8g7 f4e4 g7f7 e2f3 a7a6 b8f4 a5c5 f4e5 e7d8 e5d4 c5c6 e4e1 d8a5 e1b1 b7b6 f3e2 a5c3 d4b6 c6d6 e2e3 f7g6 e3e4

info depth 42 seldepth 65 multipv 2 score cp 59 nodes 31685208577 nps 31311412 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 time 1011938 pv h4h5 d8e8 h5g6 e8e7 e3c5 e7d7 h1h7 h8g8 b2c3 e5f4 f1c4 b7b5 c4b3 g7c3 e1f2 d7d2 f2f3 c8b7 f3f4 b7d5 a1e1 f7g6 h7c7 d5b3 c2b3 d2g2 e1d1 a8e8 d1d5 g2d2 d5d2 c3d2 f4f3 d2g5 c7a7 g5d2 c5d4 g8f8 a2a4 b5a4 b3a4 d2b4 a4a5 b4a5 a7a5 f8f7 d4a1 e8d8 a1e5 f7e6 f3e4 d8e8 a5a7 e8e7

[stegemma]

Ok just for you Stefano. Find the next Lasker move. Stockfish finds it at depth 28 but rejects it. My book gives it two exclamation marks.
[...]
Ok ok... I'm just one thousandth of Lasker... but maybe f5?

Yes, that's probably best. But Lasker played 18. h5.
[...]

This was my second choice but, if Lasker play it, it is the best one!

[Henk]

Another example that chess engines don't understand good positional play.

Of course.

Most of the latest hundred of elo gained by engines where in tactical play (i.e. reductions and the like) or basic statistically based positional play, but not on deep understanding of the position.

I compare them to excavators; they clean the field, but don't construct much

Much has to be done to reach 4000 elo

I would almost say a knowledge based approach is better. If you can extract a plan from a position you can use it as a search direction and all moves that doesn't fit the plan can be discarded.

[zullil]

Yes, that's probably best. But Lasker played 18. h5.
[...]

This was my second choice but, if Lasker play it, it is the best one!

Well, Komodo agrees with Stockfish, that 18. f5 is better than 18. h5:

Code: Select all

info multipv 1 depth 35 time 3612891 nodes 125192321124 score cp 90 nps 34651563 tbhits 14810111 pv f4f5 c3e4 f5f6 g7f8 f1g2 e4g3 h1h2 g3f5 e3c5 d8e8 e7f5 f8c5 f5h6 c5f8 h4h5 g6h5 g2e4 f8h6 h2h5 h6g5 h5h7 h8g8 h7g7 g8f8 g7g5 e8e6 e1c1 e6f6 g5e5 f6e6 e5e6 c8e6 e4b7 a8b8 b7d5 f8e7 c2c4 e7d6 d5e6 d6e6 b2b3 b8h8 d1e1 e6d6 c1d2 f7f6 d2d3 f6f5 d3e3 h8e8 e3f2

info multipv 2 depth 35 time 3612892 nodes 125192324568 score cp 42 nps 34651554 tbhits 14810112 pv h4h5 d8e8 h5g6 e8e7 e3c5 e7d7 h1h7 h8g8 b2c3 e5f4 f1c4 b7b5 c4b3 g7c3 e1f2 d7d2 f2f3 c8b7 f3f4 b7d5 a1e1 d5b3 c2b3 f7g6 h7c7 d2g2 e1e6 c3d2 f4e4 g2g5 c5a7 b5b4 a7d4 g5g4 e4d3 d2h6 c7d7 a8c8 e6f6 c8f8 f6c6 g4g2 d7d6 g8h7 d3c4 g2c2 c4b4 f8b8 d4b6 c2a2 d6g6 h6g7 g6g1 a2b2

[Henk]

Yes, that's probably best. But Lasker played 18. h5.
[...]

This was my second choice but, if Lasker play it, it is the best one!

Well, Komodo agrees with Stockfish, that 18. f5 is better than 18. h5:

Code: Select all

info multipv 1 depth 35 time 3612891 nodes 125192321124 score cp 90 nps 34651563 tbhits 14810111 pv f4f5 c3e4 f5f6 g7f8 f1g2 e4g3 h1h2 g3f5 e3c5 d8e8 e7f5 f8c5 f5h6 c5f8 h4h5 g6h5 g2e4 f8h6 h2h5 h6g5 h5h7 h8g8 h7g7 g8f8 g7g5 e8e6 e1c1 e6f6 g5e5 f6e6 e5e6 c8e6 e4b7 a8b8 b7d5 f8e7 c2c4 e7d6 d5e6 d6e6 b2b3 b8h8 d1e1 e6d6 c1d2 f7f6 d2d3 f6f5 d3e3 h8e8 e3f2

info multipv 2 depth 35 time 3612892 nodes 125192324568 score cp 42 nps 34651554 tbhits 14810112 pv h4h5 d8e8 h5g6 e8e7 e3c5 e7d7 h1h7 h8g8 b2c3 e5f4 f1c4 b7b5 c4b3 g7c3 e1f2 d7d2 f2f3 c8b7 f3f4 b7d5 a1e1 d5b3 c2b3 f7g6 h7c7 d2g2 e1e6 c3d2 f4e4 g2g5 c5a7 b5b4 a7d4 g5g4 e4d3 d2h6 c7d7 a8c8 e6f6 c8f8 f6c6 g4g2 d7d6 g8h7 d3c4 g2c2 c4b4 f8b8 d4b6 c2a2 d6g6 h6g7 g6g1 a2b2

Might be an error in my book. Book was written by Max Euwe & John Nunn. Perhaps they were not too critical about the moves Lasker played.

[Henk]

By the way Lasker played 19. Bc5 and not h5xg6 like these PV's say.

[Henk]

Botwinnik - Tartakower (Nottingham). In this position white plays 14. f4!

Again Stockfish does not agree.



[d]r3rnk1/ppqbbp2/2pp1n1p/3Pp1p1/2P1P3/2N1B1PP/PP1N1PB1/2RQ1RK1 w - g6 0 14

[zullil]

By the way Lasker played 19. Bc5 and not h5xg6 like these PV's say.

A third-best move, according to Stockfish:

Code: Select all

info depth 35 seldepth 56 multipv 1 score cp 52 nodes 5321166669 nps 27038860 hashfull 851 tbhits 0 time 196797 pv h5g6 e8e7 e3c5 e7d7 h1h7 h8g8 b2c3 e5f4 f1c4 b7b5 h7g7 g8g7 g6f7 d7f7 c4f7 g7f7 a2a4 b5a4 a1a4 a7a5 a4f4 f7g6 e1d2 g6g5 f4f8 c8b7 c5e7 g5g4 f8f1 a5a4 f1a1 b7e4 c3c4 g4f5 d2c3 f5e6 e7b4 e4f5 c3b2 a8c8 c4c5 e6d5 a1a4

info depth 35 seldepth 56 multipv 2 score cp 49 nodes 5321166669 nps 27038860 hashfull 851 tbhits 0 time 196797 pv f4f5 g6f5 e7c8 c3d5 e3f2 e8c8 e1c1 c8d8 f1h3 f5f4 h3g2 d5e3 f2e3 f4e3 g2b7 a8b8 d1d8 b8d8 h1d1 d8d1 c1d1 h7h6 b7d5 h6g5 d5f7 h8h7 f7e6 h7h6 e6g4 g7f8 d1e2 f8c5 e2d3 a7a5 d3e4 c5b6 c2c3 a5a4 g4e2 b6c5 e2d1

info depth 35 seldepth 56 multipv 3 score cp 13 nodes 5321166669 nps 27038860 hashfull 851 tbhits 0 time 196797 pv e3c5 e5f4 h5g6 f7g6 f1d3 c3d5 h1h7 h8h7 d3g6 h7h8 g6e8 c8g4 e8g6 d5e7 c5e7 g7b2 a1b1 h8g7 g6d3 a8e8 b1b2 e8e7 e1f2 b7b6 b2b4 e7e5 b4f4 e5g5 f4a4 a7a5 a4d4 g4e6 d4d6 e6a2 d6b6 g5e5 f2f3 g7f7 b6a6 f7e7 c2c4 e5c5 a6a7 e7d6