|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 490 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
| Oct-06-14 | | Tiggler: I had in mind some positions resembling the one <Nickster> posted, but did not want to get into specifics about our game on a forum that is open to all. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | RookFile: As a former tournament director, I was always in favor of "the 50 move rule applies without exception." You announce the rule ahead of time, it's the same for everybody, and it's the easiest to enforce. I know that there are exceptions, but in my life I have yet to see one actually arise. |
|
Oct-06-14
 | | HeMateMe: shouldn't we keep both Bishops? |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | Tiggler: <Rookfile>: <I know that there are exceptions, but in my life I have yet to see one actually arise.> Not surprising, if you mean "actually be played on the board". <Nickster>'s position, however, has arisen in his analysis, and the rule affects his evaluation of the position, so I would argue that the case has actually arisen. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | cro777: The Chessgames Challenge is a system for conducting team consultation games for correspondence chess. As we have seen, in the future Chessgames intends to consider the question of adhering to ICCF rules. But at the moment, the ICCF decision applies to correspondence chess tournaments of the ICCF (Title Tournaments, Promotion Tournaments, Cup Tournaments and Special Tournaments). |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | YouRang: I suppose that, in the unlikely event that we get to a position where the 50-move rule becomes applicable, we just play on. The rule doesn't really "kick in" until one player calls for it to kick in. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | RookFile: If I were to make an exception for OTB, it would be for something like K and two bishops vs. king and knight. In OTB play, the defending side usually cracks before getting near move 50. I remember one time having to defend King and Knight vs. King and Rook. I managed to, but it was surprisingly hard and I almost went wrong a couple of times. Yes, I know this is correspondence chess, so it's different. I sure hope that none of these positions arises in our game. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | Nickster: That position actually came up while studying one of <g.mueller>'s game: <g.mueller: Hi my vote 23.Bb4 and if 23...a5
here my PGN
[Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.10.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Team"]
[Black "GMARK"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C65"]
[PlyCount "146"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3 O-O 7. Nbd2 Ne7 8. d4 exd4 9. cxd4 Bb6 10. Re1 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. a3 Bg6 13. Ba4 d5 14. e5 Ne4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Nh4 Qxd4 17. Qxd4 Bxd4 18. Bg5 Nc6 19. Nxg6 fxg6 20. Rxe4 Bxf2+ 21. Kh2 Rf5 22. Bd2 Rd8 23. Bb4 a5 24. Bb3+ Kh8 25. Bc3 b5 26. Rc1 Bb6 27. e6 Ne7 28. Ree1 c6 29. Red1 Bc7+ 30. Kh1 Rdf8 31. a4 bxa4 32. Bc4 Be5 33. g4 Bxc3 34. gxf5 Bxb2 35. Rc2 Ba3 36. Rcd2 h6 37. fxg6 Nxg6 38. Rd8 Be7 39. Rxf8+ Nxf8 40. Rf1 Ng6 41. Ba2 Bf6 42. Rf5 Ne7 43. Rxa5 g6 44. Ra7 Kg7 45. Kg2 Kf8 46. Kf3 Be5 47. Rxa4 Kg7 48. Ke4 Bd6 49. Ra8 Kf6 50. Rf8+ Kg5 51. Bb1 Nd5 52. Rf7 Ne7 53. Bc2 h5 54. Ba4 Kh4 55. Rf3 Bg3 56. Rd3 Kxh3 57. Rd7 Bh4 58. Ke5 Bg5 59. Bc2 h4 60. Kd6 Nc8+ 61. Kxc6 Ne7+ 62. Kd6 Nc8+ 63. Kc5 Ne7 64. Rc7 Kg4 65. Kd6 Ng8 66. Bd1+ Kf4 67. Rf7+ Ke3 68. Rg7 Nf6 69. Rxg6 Bf4+ 70. Ke7 Ne4 71. Bc2 Ng5 72. Kf8 Nxe6+ 73. Rxe6+ Kf3 1-0>
His whole sequence starting with move <31.a4> and especially <32.Bc4>!! is spectacular. I deviated from his <35...Ba3> and played <35...a3>. After following the line at low ply I reached the position I inquired about. I take it from his play <g.mueller> is a very strong player. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | Tiggler: <Nickster>: <I take it from his play <g.mueller> is a very strong player.> I think we ought to refer to him as GMGM. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | DaringSpeculator: <Nickster>
You have missed where this came from. Please follow my discussion with <peterfritz>, starting here. The World vs Naiditsch, 2014 |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | DaringSpeculator: The World vs Naiditsch, 2014 |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | iatelier: <cro777: <Nickster> 2013 <ICCF> Congress in Kraków, decided that for all tournaments started after 01/01/2014, players will be allowed to claim a win or draw if the position can be resolved in a 6 men tablebase position.>
I have certain doubts about tablebases.
There are a few, and I doubt they are indentical. I also doubt they are with all stored positions. There are even engines you can use to generate your own "forced ending". My feeling is that tablebases also use engine "on the fly" and are not all stored. The position triggers the engine, not that everything is seek in the db. So which tablebase will be used??On another note, our game is limitless in terms of time. ICCF and other corr federations, are not. 1.5 years is the time limit. Tempo is 10 moves/50 days, that is 1 move (2 plies) 10 days
As normal game, before reduced to 6men on the board, may run even 80 moves that is 800 days > 2 years. So adjudication will be called in, before anything else, especially 50moves rule. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | DPLeo: Here's an update on the Multi-PV = 7 analysis of the position after 23.Bb4
click for larger view
Stockfish 5 x64 modern:
1) d=46 <+0.09> 23... a5 24.Bc3 Bb6 25.Bxc6 bxc6 26.e6 Bc5 2) d=46 <+0.24> 23... Nxb4 24.axb4 Rd4 25.Re2 Bh4 26.g3 Bg5 3) d=46 <+0.43> 23... Rd4 24.Bb3+ Kh8 25.Re2 Bh4 26.Bc3 Rf8 4) d=46 <+0.52> 23... h5 24.e6 h4 25.e7 Bg3+ 26.Kg1 Re8 5) d=46 <+0.52> 23... Re8 24.Rd1 h5 25.Rd2 a6 26.g4 Rf3 6) d=46 <+0.68> 23... Nxe5 24.Bb3+ Kh8 25.Be6 Nc6 26.Bxf5 gxf5 7) d=46 <+0.85> 23... h6 24.e6 Re8 25.e7 a5 26.g4 Rf3 Nxe5 has fallen a few spots now that Stockfish is getting deeper. I scrolled though each of the 46 depths in the engine window and noticed that at 42 of the 46 depths, a5 has been the number 1 move. Nxe5 started at the number 1 move and has been dropping as the depth gets higher. Nxb4 has never been the number 1 move and a few times was below the number 2 move. Enjoy! |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | DaringSpeculator: <Nickster: That position actually came up while studying one of <g.mueller>'s game:
<g.mueller: Hi my vote 23.Bb4 and if 23...a5 here my PGN [Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2014.10.05"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Team"]
[Black "GMARK"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "C65"]
[PlyCount "146"]
1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 Nf6 4. d3 Bc5 5. O-O d6 6. c3 O-O 7. Nbd2 Ne7 8. d4 exd4 9. cxd4 Bb6 10. Re1 Bg4 11. h3 Bh5 12. a3 Bg6 13. Ba4 d5 14. e5 Ne4 15. Nxe4 dxe4 16. Nh4 Qxd4 17. Qxd4 Bxd4 18. Bg5 Nc6 19. Nxg6 fxg6 20. Rxe4 Bxf2+ 21. Kh2 Rf5 22. Bd2 Rd8 23. Bb4 a5 24. Bb3+ Kh8 25. Bc3 b5 26. Rc1 Bb6 27. e6 Ne7 28. Ree1 c6 29. Red1 Bc7+ 30. Kh1 Rdf8 31. a4 bxa4 32. Bc4 Be5 33. g4 Bxc3 34. gxf5 Bxb2 35. Rc2 Ba3 36. Rcd2 h6 37. fxg6 Nxg6 38. Rd8 Be7 39. Rxf8+ Nxf8 40. Rf1 Ng6 41. Ba2 Bf6 42. Rf5 Ne7 43. Rxa5 g6 44. Ra7 Kg7 45. Kg2 Kf8 46. Kf3 Be5 47. Rxa4 Kg7 48. Ke4 Bd6 49. Ra8 Kf6 50. Rf8+ Kg5 51. Bb1 Nd5 52. Rf7 Ne7 53. Bc2 h5 54. Ba4 Kh4 55. Rf3 Bg3 56. Rd3 Kxh3 57. Rd7 Bh4 58. Ke5 Bg5 59. Bc2 h4 60. Kd6 Nc8+ 61. Kxc6 Ne7+ 62. Kd6 Nc8+ 63. Kc5 Ne7 64. Rc7 Kg4 65. Kd6 Ng8 66. Bd1+ Kf4 67. Rf7+ Ke3 68. Rg7 Nf6 69. Rxg6 Bf4+ 70. Ke7 Ne4 71. Bc2 Ng5 72. Kf8 Nxe6+ 73. Rxe6+ Kf3 1-0>
His whole sequence starting with move <31.a4> and especially <32.Bc4>!! is spectacular. I deviated from his <35...Ba3> and played <35...a3>. After following the line at low ply I reached the position I inquired about. I take it from his play <g.mueller> is a very strong player.> This is going to impose an extra burden on us. After 35...a3 is played, I have managed to get to a pawnless endgame where the mate is achieved in 62 moves with a capture on move 40. The variation wasn't forced of course. I don't know whether with best play we can win within the 50 move rule constraint or not. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | cro777: <iatelier: I have certain doubts about tablebases. There are a few, and I doubt they are indentical.> ICCF has also signed an agreement with Convekta Ltd whom will provide ICCF Tournament Directors free access to the 6 men Lomonosov tablebases. The developers of the Aquarium interface, programmers Zakharov and Makhnichev created an algorithm to produce the 7-piece tablebases utilizing the Lomonosov Supercomputer based in the Moscow State University. ICCF is currently accepting claims based on 6 men tablebase positions only. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | iatelier: <cro777: <iatelier: I have certain doubts about tablebases. There are a few, and I doubt they are indentical.>
ICCF has also signed an agreement with Convekta Ltd whom will provide ICCF Tournament Directors free access to the 6 men Lomonosov tablebases.> Question 1: Are this Nalumov tb on the Net the same as Lomonosov? Or the one used on Shredder website? Question 2: Surely there are more powerful computers in US then in Russia.
Why don't we have something simular? With different results /sic/… |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | DaringSpeculator: On second thought I think if you get there, we should embrace it as a challenge, not only to win, but also to win under the FIDE rules. Otherwise some of my teammates may get bored...:-) |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | Zhbugnoimt: About supercomputers, the most powerful one is in China. It is twice as fast as the USA's fastest supercomputer. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | cro777: <iatelier> At the Lomonosov, the 7-piece tablebases have been developed. Currently, ICCF has free access to 6-piece positions. Access to 7-piece tablebases at the moment is not free. |
|
Oct-06-14
 | | chrisowen: If at jiffy see if you clean up good aim again ogle long and b4 strong balanced axe dance vet he back marginal gain am dank as b4 net worth shed ie vow jungle skim palm cone yoga man give be monkey for a oomph b4 all dim similar slim man pop rook disapper band gold ive local vibe dose treat his jive back a5 doesnt shin time wreck mottled a voice spray squirm murmer d8 ok mint oomph c6 either bind pen b4 acker bermuda triangle wedge i shall demonstrate arm ash ave b4. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | kwid: <Nickster:><I take it from his play <g.mueller> <is a very strong player.> He is chessfriend for many years but I do not think that he ever played in the ICCF as Ceri Evans did. But he does use very fast computers with the latest engine software and programs. When checking his game I come up with a draw via:
23. Bb4 a5 24. Bb3+ Kh8 25. Bc3 b5 26. Rc1 Bb6 27. e6 Ne7 28. Ree1 c6 29. Red1 Bc7+ 30. Kh1 Rdf8 31. a4 bxa4 32. Bc4 Be5 33. g4 Bxc3 34. gxf5 Bxb2 35. Rc2 Ba3 36. Rcd2 h5 37. fxg6 Nxg6 38. Rg2 Ne7 39. Rg5 Bb4 40. Rxh5+ Kg8 41. Rd7 Re8 42. Bd3 g6 43. Rg5 a3 44. Bxg6 Nxg6 45. Rxg6+ Kh8 46. Rd1
Kh7 47. Rf6 Bc3 48. Rf3 Bb2 49. Rf5 a2 50. Rxa5 a1=Q 51. Raxa1 Bxa1 52. Rxa1 Rxe6 1/2-1/2 Which he and Fritz most likely will try to refute again. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | cormier: <Nickster> the rule will only apply if the black K is alone on the board ... |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | YouRang: <2013 <ICCF> Congress in Kraków, decided that for all tournaments started after 01/01/2014, players will be allowed to claim a win or draw if the position can be resolved in a 6 men tablebase position.> It's a longshot technicality for sure, but my understanding is that all tablebases assume that castling will not be an legal option for either side in endgame positions. Does this new rule have the provision that it's only applicable when neither side can in fact castle? |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | DPLeo: <DaringSpeculator: ... we should embrace it as a challenge, not only to win, but also to win under the FIDE rules. ...> I'm not sure that the answer from <chessgames.com> has clarified what they consider the FIDE rules to be. According to <Tiggler> "FIDE recognizes ICCF as the authority on correspondence chess". Since this game is correspondence chess then it would stand to reason that we are following FIDE rules by playing according to the ICCF rules that FIDE recognizes as the authority on correspondence chess. |
|
| Oct-06-14 | | epicchess: Vote Bxc6, it leads to a slim chance of him making a mistake, or at least striving away from a dead draw. after Bb4, I would just offer a draw, there is no point to play an opposite bishops endgame for another year. If you guys play Bb4, be aware that you are signing the scoresheet for a drawn game. |
|
 |
|
|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 490 OF 707 ·
Later Kibitzing> |
Kibitzing
Annotations by 
icon.