EGTB studies

Endgame analysis using tablebases, EGTB generation, exchange, sharing, discussions, etc..

EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:45 pm

I propose a new topic about chess endgame studies composed with tablebase help.

Árpád Rusz - Sakkvilág, 2010
8/3b2KP/8/2R5/8/5R2/pk6/7r
8/3b2KP/8/2R5/8/5R2/pk6/7r
White to move and win

After 1.Ra5 a1Q 2.Rf2! Kb1 3.Ra1 Ka1 4.Rf1! Rf1 5.h8Q Be6 we get the following position:

7Q/6K1/4b3/8/8/8/8/k4r2
7Q/6K1/4b3/8/8/8/8/k4r2

Try to guess which is the only move by the white king that wins!
Last edited by Arpad Rusz on Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Re: EGTB studies

Postby ernest » Thu Dec 16, 2010 12:27 am

How do I get the FEN out of the diagram? :o
(I can see it when I put the mouse in the diagram, but I cannot copy it...)
ernest
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:31 pm
Location: Paris

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:46 am

If you click the Quote button on the post with diagrams you can copy the FEN.
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Kirill Kryukov » Thu Dec 16, 2010 10:51 am

I now added automatic display of the FEN string above the diagram. Enjoy. :-)
User avatar
Kirill Kryukov
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Mishima, Japan

Re: EGTB studies

Postby ernest » Thu Dec 16, 2010 5:22 pm

Kirill Kryukov wrote:I now added automatic display of the FEN string above the diagram. Enjoy. :-)

Thanks !!!!!!!!!!!
Good move !!!!!!!!!!!! :D
ernest
 
Posts: 63
Joined: Tue Nov 21, 2006 6:31 pm
Location: Paris

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Kirill Kryukov » Fri Dec 17, 2010 2:29 pm

Arpad Rusz wrote:I propose a new topic about chess endgame studies composed with tablebase help.

Nice, I always enjoy these irrational positions. Please post more if you'll find any! Perhaps some day I'll try to use them for the EGTB test suite (when I'll get time to resurrect the project).

ernest wrote:Thanks !!!!!!!!!!!
Good move !!!!!!!!!!!! :D

I should have done it years ago. Welcome! :-)
User avatar
Kirill Kryukov
Site Admin
 
Posts: 7338
Joined: Sun Dec 18, 2005 9:58 am
Location: Mishima, Japan

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:12 am

7Q/6K1/4b3/8/8/8/8/k4r2
7Q/6K1/4b3/8/8/8/8/k4r2

The question was: "Which is the only move by the white king that wins?"

The answer:
Only 7. Kh7!! is winning! 7...Ka2 8. Qa8+ Kb3 (8... Kb2 9. Qg2+ +-) 9. Qb8+! (9. Qb7+? Kc3 10. Qc6+ Bc4 =) 9... Kc4 (9... Kc3 10. Qe5+ +-) 10. Qc7+ Kd5 (10... Kd4 11. Qb6+ +-) 11. Qa5+ Ke4 12.Qb4+ (12. Qa4+? Kd3 13. Qa6+ Bc4 =) 12... Kf3 (12... Kd3 13. Qd6+ +-) 13.Qf8+ (13. Qb7+? Kg3 =) 13... Kg2 (13... Ke2 14. Qe8 +-) 14. Qg7+ Kh1 (14... Kh2 15. Qe5+ +-) 15. Qh6+! +- Only now we see the reason for not playing 7.Kh6?

(As there are no winning queen moves, playing 7.Kh7!! is the only way to win.)
Last edited by Arpad Rusz on Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:28 am, edited 1 time in total.
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Re: EGTB studies

Postby dann corbit » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:22 am

FEN: 8/3b2KP/8/2R5/8/5R2/pk6/7r w - - 0 1

A certain magician says:
4/14 00:00 3.508 1.169.000 +1.10 Rf3f2+ Kb2b3 Rc5a5 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7
4/14 00:00 5.862 1.465.000 +1.40 Rc5a5 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Bd7e6 Rf3f2+ Kb2c3 Ra5a3+ Kc3b4
5/15 00:00 6.809 1.702.000 +1.40 Rc5a5 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Bd7e6 Rf3f2+ Kb2c3 Ra5a3+ Kc3b4
5/15 00:00 7.463 1.865.000 +1.56 Rf3f2+ Kb2b3 Rc5a5 Rh1g1+ Kg7f6 Rg1h1
6/15 00:00 8.707 1.741.000 +1.30 Rf3f2+ Kb2b3 Rc5a5 Rh1g1+ Kg7f6 Rg1h1 Rf2f3+ Kb3c4 Rf3f4+ Kc4c3 Ra5a3+ Kc3b2
6/15 00:00 9.488 1.897.000 +1.62 Rc5a5 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Bd7e6 Rf3f2+ Kb2b1 Ra5b5+ Kb1c1 Rf2f1+ Kc1c2
7/15 00:00 10.771 1.346.000 +1.62 Rc5a5 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Bd7e6 Rf3f2+ Kb2b1 Ra5b5+ Kb1c1 Rf2f1+ Kc1c2
8/15+ 00:00 12.907 1.173.000 +1.71 Rc5a5
8/15+ 00:00 13.313 1.210.000 +1.89 Rc5a5
8/15+ 00:00 13.772 1.147.000 +2.30 Rc5a5
8/17 00:00 14.447 1.203.000 +2.45 Rc5a5 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Bd7e6 Rf3f2+ Kb2b1 Ra5b5+ Kb1c1 Rf2f1+ Kc1c2 Kh7g6
9/21+ 00:00 20.328 1.355.000 +2.57 Rc5a5
9/21+ 00:00 26.763 1.574.000 +2.82 Rc5a5
9/21 00:00 52.704 2.291.000 +2.30 Rc5a5 Rh1g1+ Kg7f6 Rg1h1 Rf3f2+ Kb2c3 Kf6g7 Rh1g1+ Kg7h8 a2a1Q Ra5xa1 Rg1xa1 Kh8g7 Ra1g1+ Kg7f6
10/26- 00:00 73.770 2.732.000 +2.18 Rc5a5 Rh1g1+
10/29- 00:00 115.564 3.301.000 +1.95 Rc5a5 Rh1g1+
10/29- 00:00 174.537 3.713.000 +1.37 Rc5a5 Rh1g1+
10/29 00:00 289.760 4.324.000 +0.22 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Ra5xa1 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Kb2xa1 Rf3b3 Bd7c6 Kh7g7 Ka1a2 Rb3b6 Bc6d5 Rb6b5 Bd5e4
11/30 00:00 397.886 4.521.000 +0.21 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Ra5xa1 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Kb2xa1 Rf3b3 Bd7c6 Kh7g7 Ka1a2 Rb3b6 Bc6d5 Rb6b5 Bd5c4 Rb5b8
12/34 00:00 638.792 4.802.000 +0.21 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Ra5xa1 Kb2xa1 Rf3b3 Bd7f5 h7h8Q Rh1xh8 Kg7xh8 Bf5e4 Rb3b6 Be4d5 Kh8g7 Ka1a2 Kg7f6 Ka2a3 Kf6e5
13/34+ 00:00 969.927 5.159.000 +0.27 Rc5a5
13/34 00:00 1.378.265 5.695.000 +0.21 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Ra5xa1 Rh1xh7+ Kg7xh7 Kb2xa1 Rf3b3 Ka1a2 Rb3b8 Bd7c6 Kh7g7 Bc6e4 Kg7f6 Ka2a3 Kf6e5 Be4c6 Rb8b1
14/34 00:00 1.992.726 5.661.000 +0.21 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 h7h8Q Rh1xh8 Kg7xh8 Ka1b1 Kh8g7 Kb1c1 Kg7f6 Kc1d1 Kf6e5 Bd7e8 Rf2a2 Kd1c1 Ra2e2 Be8c6 Ke5d6 Kc1d1
15/44+ 00:00 2.913.009 5.634.000 +0.26 Rc5a5
15/44+ 00:00 3.657.890 5.967.000 +0.36 Rc5a5
15/44+ 00:01 4.320.329 6.102.000 +1.58 Rc5a5
15/44 00:01 6.082.668 6.436.000 +2.93 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3g2 Qf8g7+ Kg2h3 Qg7h6+ Kh3g3 Qh6xe6 Rf1g1 Qe6e3+ Kg3h2 Kh7h6 Rg1g4
16/44 00:01 6.522.590 4.835.000 +2.93 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3g2 Qf8g7+ Kg2h3 Qg7h6+ Kh3g3 Qh6xe6 Rf1g1 Qe6e3+ Kg3h2 Kh7h6 Rg1g4
17/44 00:02 7.864.062 4.543.000 +2.93 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3g2 Qf8g7+ Kg2h3 Qg7h6+ Kh3g3 Qh6xe6 Rf1g1 Qe6e3+ Kg3h2 Kh7h6 Rg1g4
18/44 00:02 11.377.639 5.209.000 +2.99 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3g2 Qf8g7+ Kg2h3 Qg7h6+ Kh3g3 Qh6xe6 Rf1g1 Qe6e3+ Kg3h2 Qe3h6+ Kh2g3 Qh6g6+ Kg3h2
19/44 00:03 16.394.706 5.742.000 +2.96 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3g2 Qf8g7+ Kg2h3 Qg7h6+ Kh3g3 Qh6xe6 Rf1g1 Qe6e3+ Kg3h2 Qe3h6+ Kh2g2 Qh6g5+ Kg2f1 Qg5e3 Rg1g2 Qe3d4 Rg2f2
20/47 00:04 26.519.878 6.402.000 +3.01 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3e2 Qf8e8 Ke2d3 Qe8xe6 Rf1f4 Kh7g6 Rf4e4 Qe6d5+ Re4d4 Qd5b3+ Kd3e4 Qb3e6+ Ke4f4 Qe6f6+ Kf4e3 Qf6e5+ Rd4e4 Qe5d5 Re4d4 Qd5g5+ Ke3d3 Qg5b5+ Kd3c3 Qb5c5+ Kc3d3 Kg6g5
21/50 00:06 44.196.997 6.668.000 +3.04 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3e2 Qf8e8 Ke2d3 Qe8xe6 Rf1f4 Kh7g6 Rf4e4 Qe6d5+ Re4d4 Qd5b3+ Kd3e4 Qb3e6+ Ke4d3 Kg6f5 Kd3c3 Kf5e5 Rd4c4 Qe6d5
22/52 00:10 68.384.160 6.784.000 +3.04 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3e2 Qf8e8 Ke2d3 Qe8xe6 Rf1f4 Kh7g6 Kd3d4 Kg6g5 Rf4e4 Qe6b6+ Kd4c4 Qb6c7+ Kc4d5 Kg5f5 Re4d4 Qc7b6 Rd4d3 Qb6b5+ Kd5d4 Qb5b6+ Kd4c4 Qb6a6+ Kc4d4 Qa6d6+ Kd4c4 Qd6c6+
23/53 00:16 112.408.395 7.099.000 +3.04 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3e2 Qf8e8 Ke2d3 Qe8xe6 Rf1f4 Kh7g6 Kd3d4 Kg6g5 Rf4e4 Qe6b6+ Kd4c4 Qb6c7+ Kc4d5 Kg5f5 Re4d4 Qc7b6 Rd4d3 Qb6b5+ Kd5d4 Qb5b6+ Kd4c4 Qb6a6+ Kc4d4 Qa6d6+ Kd4c4 Qd6c6+
24/57 00:26 190.988.110 7.428.000 +3.04 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3e2 Qf8e8 Ke2d3 Qe8xe6 Rf1f4 Kh7g6 Kd3d4 Kg6g5 Rf4e4 Qe6b6+ Kd4c4 Qb6c7+ Kc4d5 Kg5f5 Re4d4 Qc7b6 Rd4d3 Qb6b5+ Kd5d4 Qb5b4+ Kd4d5 Qb4e4+
25/67 01:21 665.013.699 8.165.000 +3.04 Rc5a5 a2a1Q Rf3f2+ Kb2b1+ Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3e2 Qf8e8 Ke2d3 Qe8xe6 Rf1f4 Kh7g6 Kd3d4 Kg6g5 Rf4e4 Qe6b6+ Kd4c4 Qb6c7+ Kc4d5 Kg5f5 Re4d4 Qc7b6 Rd4d3 Qb6b5+ Kd5d4 Qb5b4+ Kd4d5 Qb4e4+
26/68+ 02:53 1.425.345.065 8.214.000 +3.19 Rc5a5
26/68+ 03:14 1.597.834.689 8.210.000 +3.48 Rc5a5
26/68+ 07:42 3.654.178,698 7.910.000 +6.13 Rc5a5
26/75 18:58 9.655.999,709 8.486.000 +6.69 Rc5a5 a2a1N Rf3f2+ Na1c2 Ra5c5 Bd7a4 h7h8Q Rh1xh8 Kg7xh8 Kb2b1 Kh8g7 Ba4b3 Kg7g6 Bb3a4 Kg6g5 Nc2e3 Rf2f4 Ba4c2 Rf4b4+ Kb1c1 Rb4e4 Kc1d2 Re4xe3 Kd2xe3 Rc5xc2 Ke3f3 Kg5f5 Kf3e3 Kf5e5 Ke3f3 Rc2c3+ Kf3g4 Rc3c4+ Kg4f3 Rc4f4+ Kf3e2 Rf4h4 Ke2f3 Rh4d4 Kf3e3 Rd4a4 Ke3f3 Ra4a3+ Kf3g4 Ra3e3 Kg4g5 Re3g3+ Kg5h4 Ke5f4 Kh4h5 Rg3g1 Kh5h6 Kf4f5
27/75 20:23 10.306.162,372 8.425.000 +6.69 Rc5a5 a2a1N Rf3f2+ Na1c2 Ra5c5 Bd7a4 h7h8Q Rh1xh8 Kg7xh8 Kb2b1 Kh8g7 Ba4b3 Kg7g6 Bb3a4 Kg6g5 Nc2e3 Rf2f4 Ba4c2 Rf4b4+ Kb1c1 Rb4e4 Kc1d2 Re4xe3 Kd2xe3 Rc5xc2 Ke3d3 Rc2c5 Kd3e4 Rc5c8 Ke4d5 Kg5f5 Kd5d4 Rc8d8+ Kd4c4 Kf5e5 Kc4c3 Rd8d6 Kc3c4 Rd6d4+ Kc4b3 Rd4f4 Kb3c3 Rf4f2 Kc3d3 Rf2g2 Kd3e3 Rg2g3+ Ke3f2 Rg3a3 Kf2e2 Ra3a4 Ke2d3 Ra4f4 Kd3c3 Rf4f2
28/75 22:35 11.376.422,432 8.396.000 +6.69 Rc5a5 a2a1N Rf3f2+ Na1c2 Ra5c5 Bd7a4 h7h8Q Rh1xh8 Kg7xh8 Kb2b1 Kh8g7 Kb1b2 Kg7g6 Kb2b1 Kg6g5 Nc2e3 Rf2f4 Ba4c2 Rf4b4+ Kb1c1 Rb4e4 Kc1d2 Re4xe3 Kd2xe3 Rc5xc2 Ke3d3 Rc2c5 Kd3e4 Rc5c8 Ke4d5 Kg5f5 Kd5d4 Rc8d8+ Kd4c5 Kf5e4 Kc5c6 Ke4e5 Kc6c7 Rd8h8 Kc7d7 Rh8g8 Kd7e7 Rg8g7+ Ke7f8 Rg7c7 Kf8e8 Ke5e6 Ke8f8 Rc7f7+ Kf8g8 Rf7d7 Kg8f8 Rd7e7 Kf8g8
29/75+ 28:39 14.364.095,925 8.356.000 +6.96 Rc5a5
29/75+ 34:58 17.330.412,722 8.260.000 +7.52 Rc5a5
29/81+ 1:27:09 42.804.976,256 8.185.000 +13.55 Rc5a5
29/81 2:00:00 62.258.191,501 8.646.000 +13.55 Rc5a5 a2a1N Rf3f2+ Kb2b1 Rf2f1+ Rh1xf1 Ra5xa1+ Kb1xa1 h7h8Q Bd7e6 Kg7h7+ Ka1a2 Qh8a8+ Ka2b3 Qa8b8+ Kb3c4 Qb8c7+ Kc4d5 Qc7a5+ Kd5e4 Qa5b4+ Ke4f3 Qb4f8+ Kf3e2 Qf8e8 Ke2d3 Qe8xe6 Rf1f4 Kh7g6 Kd3d4 Kg6g5 Rf4e4
dann corbit
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:10 am

Re: EGTB studies

Postby dann corbit » Sat Dec 18, 2010 12:27 am

More compact format:
8/3b2KP/8/2R5/8/5R2/pk6/7r w - - acd 29/81; acn 62258191501; acs 432000; bm Ra5; c0 "Árpád Rusz - Sakkvilág, 2010"; ce 1355; pv Ra5 a1=N Rf2+ Kb1 Rf1+ Rxf1 Rxa1+ Kxa1 h8=Q Be6 Kh7+ Ka2 Qa8+ Kb3 Qb8+ Kc4 Qc7+ Kd5 Qa5+ Ke4 Qb4+ Kf3 Qf8+ Ke2 Qe8 Kd3 Qxe6 Rf4 Kg6 Kd4 Kg5 Re4;
dann corbit
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 9:10 am

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Sat Dec 18, 2010 4:28 pm

dann corbit wrote:More compact format:
8/3b2KP/8/2R5/8/5R2/pk6/7r w - - acd 29/81; acn 62258191501; acs 432000; bm Ra5; c0 "Árpád Rusz - Sakkvilág, 2010"; ce 1355; pv Ra5 a1=N Rf2+ Kb1 Rf1+ Rxf1 Rxa1+ Kxa1 h8=Q Be6 Kh7+ Ka2 Qa8+ Kb3 Qb8+ Kc4 Qc7+ Kd5 Qa5+ Ke4 Qb4+ Kf3 Qf8+ Ke2 Qe8 Kd3 Qxe6 Rf4 Kg6 Kd4 Kg5 Re4;


1...a1N is a weak move, 2.h8Q Rxh8 3.Kxh8 wins...
Engines beat us but they don't really understand chess. :wink:
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Please, 'no' to 'EGTB Studies'

Postby guyhaw » Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:00 am

I have for a long time deprecated the epithet 'EGTB Study', assigned originally by John Roycroft to any study which entered the sub-7-man 'EGT'd' zone of chess.

AJR seemed to be implying that such studies should not be allowed - or should be confined to their own ghetto, and that their composers were somehow cheating.

This was something of a volte-face for AJR who had always championed the creation and use of EGTs.

Unfortunately, his objections to EGT-assisted creation are no more than luddite. A study is much more than a position, and the fact that the value/depth of a position can be looked up in a file does not mean that a study involving it is 'anticipated'. This has now been made clear by what was the FIDE PCCC.

New methods and tools change old practices, and this is true also of study composition.

So, as you can tell, I'm really not in favour of dividing up studies into those that are independent of EGT'd-chess and those that are not.

g
guyhaw
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:43 am
Location: Reading, UK

Studies in the sub-7-man zone of chess

Postby guyhaw » Sat Jan 01, 2011 1:05 am

Since 'studies' and sub-7-man chess are being discussed in the same breath here ...

... I should say that I've just written a short piece for the ICGA Journal reporting the data-mining of Harold van der Heijden's excellent ENDGAME STUDY DATABASE IV.

Eiko Bleicher and I evaluated all sub-7-man positions in Harold's corpus to see which studies contained:

- mainline positions with values incompatible with the stipulation of the study
- mainline positions where there was more than one DTM-optimal move
- moves which were not DTM-optimal, indicating at least a dual of some significance

The 3-pager in the December issue of the ICGA Journal basically reports on studies cooked by this EGT-based analysis.

g
guyhaw
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:43 am
Location: Reading, UK

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Sat Jan 01, 2011 11:51 pm

The problem was that there were some composers who added a few moves (usually forced and with captures) to a position from the reciprocal zugzwang list and called that a "study". But AJR was wrong: there is nothing bad with a good EGTB study.

I let you to discover the solution of the following study from Heijden's database:

S. Osintsev (1st Prize Kaljagin JT 2009)
8/4p3/8/2K1P3/N7/4p3/4k3/8 w - - 0 1
8/4p3/8/2K1P3/N7/4p3/4k3/8 w - - 0 1
White to move and win

After 1.Nb2! there are two nice variations starting with 1...Kd2 and 1...Kf3.
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Re problems with EGT-assisted study composition

Postby guyhaw » Sun Jan 02, 2011 9:23 am

The zugzwang is a big theme in studies, and AJR used to publish lists of zugs - often in EG. Unfortunately, these lists were often found to have errors.

See http://ilk.uvt.nl/icga/games/chess/endgames.php for the complete list of value-critical ('Type A') zugs.

See http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/view/creat ... 00763.html and specifically http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/4518/ for definitions and examples of Type B and Type C zugzwangs - and an explanation of why the term 'reciprocal zugzwang' is not 100.000% apposite!


I would like to have examples of studies which anyone thinks have been over-assisted by EGTs, and examples of judges who thought so.

A fundamental problem in the studies community is that judges appear to have very different criteria, all of which are 'secret'. A better way forward might be that each judge declares a one-page manifesto on their judging stance.

John Nunn has written most clearly on the issues around studies and EGTs, and I agree with his perspective. The means of composition is irrelevant: it is the output that is being judged. Perhaps the confusions between 'process' and 'output' is confused by the fact that the word 'composition' describes both.

There is another instrinsic problem. There are certainly studies which are proved by EGTs to have an absolutely unique solution - not even a single 'ignorable dual' - but which have too long a solution for human consumption. It may be because of this that they are deemed not to have artistic merit, or maybe they did not have artistic merit anyway.

'Length' is not the only technical parameter testing human understanding. 'Width' is another. If a thicket of side-variations have to be explained away, the explanation of the solution becomes indigestible. The composer needs to explain away not only alternative moves for White which meet the goal but moves which appear to meet the goal but in fact do not.


On the other side of the study/EGT problem scenario, I found AJR's arguments, effectively against studies now going into 'EGT territory', to be too aggressive: at times they degenerated into goal-based rhetoric. I was reminded of the Stalinistic logic that sent more than one Russian study composer to the gulag because their compositions were not accessible enough to 'the people'.

I challenged AJR to produce an 'EGT study' based on casually picking up a position from an EGT and turning it into a study: he hasn't done so and I don't believe he would find it easy.

AJR's stance caused a most unfortunate hiatus in the judging of the Bent Memorial Tournament, when the other two judges did not agree with his stance on studies going into 6-man territory. All of this subtracts from AJR's reputation which is a pity as he has given much to the world of the chess study.

g
guyhaw
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:43 am
Location: Reading, UK

The Osintsev study

Postby guyhaw » Sun Jan 02, 2011 10:35 am

... #75,270 in HvdH's Endgame Study Database IV.

Thank you for highlighting that: it's very special, and dbIV/EGTs help to understand why it is so.

A combination of the Trebuchet and N-converting-P themes with a neat preamble. Excellent

g
guyhaw
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:43 am
Location: Reading, UK

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Mon Jan 03, 2011 2:43 am

I have modified this position (Z07) found here: http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/4518

8/8/8/2p5/1pP1p3/kP2P3/Pp1P4/1K6 b - c3 0 1
8/8/8/2p5/1pP1p3/kP2P3/Pp1P4/1K6 b - c3 0 1

Now the following position is a chess study with only one winning move (1.c4!):

8/8/2p5/2p1p3/1p2p3/kP2P3/PpPP4/1K6 w - - 0 1
8/8/2p5/2p1p3/1p2p3/kP2P3/PpPP4/1K6 w - - 0 1

1.c4! (1.c3? c4! 2.cxb4 cxb3 3.axb3 Kxb3 -+) 1...bxc3 e.p. 2.dxc3 c4 3.b4 (3.bxc4? c5 -+) 3...Ka4 4.Kxb2 Kb5 5.Ka3 Kb6 6.Ka4 Ka6 7.b5+! (7.a3? Kb6 8.b5 c5 stalemate) 7...cxb5+ 8.Kb4 Kb6 9.a4 bxa4 10.Kxa4 Kc5 11.Ka5 Kc6 12.Kb4 Kd5 13.Kb5 1-0

Do you know any other examples of this kind?
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Mon Jan 03, 2011 12:39 pm

Position #405206 in the Sub-7-man DTM metric zugs pgn is wrongly listed as type A8.
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Re: EGTB studies

Postby guyhaw » Mon Jan 03, 2011 6:58 pm

Yes: you have a study based on Noam Elkies' zugzwang position 'Z07'.

Noam was focused on creating zugs of types a4-a6 rather than creating studies.

Not sure what the authorship attribution should be: 'Ruiz after Elkies' I think. I'm certainly not in the back-story of your study's creation. As to its quality, I'm not sure there's enough of a 'surprise element' but technically, it's fine.

I think 9.a3 works as well but may be a 'minor dual'.
12.Ka4 just puts a time-wasting loop of 4 ply into the line.
14.Kb6 (beyond the 'unique line') is better than the obvious 14.Kxc4 but the latter also wins.


I think all Noam's zug-compositions were in http://centaur.reading.ac.uk/4518


I assume your comment about position #405206 is correct: there isn't a type A8 but it sounds like it's type A4, A5 or A6. I'll check later: thanks.

g
guyhaw
 
Posts: 485
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2006 10:43 am
Location: Reading, UK

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Tue Jan 04, 2011 3:00 pm

There is also possible to have two e.p. captures in a mutual zugzwang position.

8/8/1p1p1p1p/1P1k1P1P/2p1p3/2P1P2P/2PPK3/8 w - - 0 1
8/8/1p1p1p1p/1P1k1P1P/2p1p3/2P1P2P/2PPK3/8 w - - 0 1

Only 1.d4! (reciprocal zugzwang!) wins. White needs the extra tempo h3-h4 in some variations.
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary

Re: EGTB studies

Postby Arpad Rusz » Tue Apr 19, 2011 9:32 pm

The author of the following study presumed that the RRN/RR 7 piece ending is a general draw...

E.Vlasák (Hlinka JT, 2004)
8/8/kr6/8/1P3r2/4R3/3N4/3KR3 w - - 0 1
8/8/kr6/8/1P3r2/4R3/3N4/3KR3 w - - 0 1
White wins

1. Ra3+ Kb7 2. Re7+ Kc6 3. Rc3+ Kd6 4. Rc4 Rxb4 5.Ree4!

8/8/3k4/8/1rR1Rr2/8/3N4/3K4 b - - 0 5
8/8/3k4/8/1rR1Rr2/8/3N4/3K4 b - - 0 5

5... Rxc4 (5... Rxe4 6.Nxe4+ Kd5 7. Rxb4) 6. Nxc4+ Kd5 7. Rxf4 +-

It would be very nice but Bourzutschky and Konoval proved that RRN/RR is a general win, so white wins even if it loses the pawn. The study is demolished...

I was trying to save it: here's my position (first publication):

Á.Rusz (after E.Vlasák)
5R2/2r5/1N2P1r1/2P1kbP1/8/4b3/8/3RK3 w - - 0 1
5R2/2r5/1N2P1r1/2P1kbP1/8/4b3/8/3RK3 w - - 0 1
White wins

1. Nc4+ Kxe6 (1... Ke4 2. Nd6+ Ke5 3. Rxf5+ Kxe6 4. Rdd5 +-) 2. Rd6+ Ke7 3. Rxf5 Rxg5 (3... Rxc5 4. Rxc5 Rxd6 5. Nxe3 +-) 4. Nxe3 Rxc5 5. Rdd5!

8/4k3/8/2rR1Rr1/8/4N3/8/4K3 b - - 0 5
8/4k3/8/2rR1Rr1/8/4N3/8/4K3 b - - 0 5

5...Rc1+ (5... Rxd5 6. Nxd5+ Ke6 7. Rxg5 +-; 5... Rxf5 6. Nxf5+ Ke6 7. Rxc5 +-; 5... Rg1+ 6. Kf2 Rxd5 7. Nxd5+ Ke6 8.Rf6+ +-) 6. Kd2 Rxf5 7. Nxf5+ Ke6 8. Rd6+ +-

While in the first study 5.Rcc7 is a dual, here 5.Rff6? is only a draw!

Thematic try: 1. Rd5+? Ke4! (1... Kxe6? 2. Rfxf5 +-) 2. Rfxf5 Rxe6 3. Nc4 Rxc5 (3... Bf4!?) 4. Nxe3

8/8/4r3/2rR1RP1/4k3/4N3/8/4K3 b - - 0 4
8/8/4r3/2rR1RP1/4k3/4N3/8/4K3 b - - 0 4

4...Rxd5 5. Rxd5 Kxe3 =
Arpad Rusz
 
Posts: 93
Joined: Mon Mar 27, 2006 5:33 pm
Location: Romania/Hungary


Return to Endgame Tablebases

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest