Not sure whether this is visible without a subscription:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/14/can-solve-chess-problem-holds-key-human-consciousness/

From the article:
The puzzle may seem hopeless for white, with just a King and four pawns remaining, but it is possible to draw and even win.
Scientists have constructed it in a way to confound a chess computer, which would normally consider that it is a win for black.
However an average chess-playing human should be able to see that a draw is possible.

I wonder what "average chess-playing human" means ...

Originally posted by Diapason
Not sure whether this is visible without a subscription:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/14/can-solve-chess-problem-holds-key-human-consciousness/

From the article:
The puzzle may seem hopeless for white, with just a King and four pawns remaining, but it is possible to draw and even win.
Scientists have constructed it in a way to confound a ...[text shortened]... be able to see that a draw is possible.

I wonder what "average chess-playing human" means ...

Looks like a draw to me, and I'm no master. If white just diddles with his king on the light squares, black has no way to make progress.

Originally posted by byedidia
Looks like a draw to me, and I'm no master. If white just diddles with his king on the light squares, black has no way to make progress.

I need to give my box more time.

Heading to bed. The computer still had black up the same, but all it did was move a king and move bishops.

Looking like my box says draw in deep analysis mode.

Originally posted by Eladar
I'm guessing some level of master.

The position from the first post.



White to play and draw.

Computers may struggle because the draw is the 50 move rule.

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
WTF - they're telling me to take some time and think about it.

Like any thought is necessary. Durh. Just move the wK around and black can't do sh|t, as another poster has already noticed [and no doubt every reader of the thread who actually bothered to click on the link].

If a human can't solve such a puzzle in a nanosecond, they need to find a different game to play. 😛🙄

“If you put this puzzle into a chess computer it just assumes a black win because of the number of pieces and positions, but a human will look at this and know quickly that is not the case,” said Sir Roger.


Looks like Sir Roger believes ahead means a win. My computer on deep analysis never came up with a win, just a consistant advantage which I assume is on material.

Funny how I was thinking of a nrw way for computers to calculate giving only how strong the piece is on the board. My thought was by calculating mobility for each piece or how close a pawn is to promoting.

A much harder puzzle is: How do you get to this position?

I have many issues with this article. First is the idea that a computer will botch this up. The computers very clearly make the right moves even if their evaluation of the position is wrong. My computer, HIARCS, has harmless king moves for every move in all the lines. Second is the use of the phrase, "force stalemate." Stalemate and draw are not synonyms. The third is this sentence, "The three bishops forces the computer to perform a massive search of possible positions that will rapidly expand to something that exceeds all the computational power on planet earth." Really?

Originally posted by Eladar
Did you read on in the thread after your knee jerk?

Originally posted by BigDoggProblem
Where's the fun in that? 😛

Originally posted by byedidia
A much harder puzzle is: How do you get to this position?

Originally posted by Eladar
Yeah I know. Hence my first post....