weyerstrass-nowakowski

It may be better if White just tossed away the pawn to increase stalemate
chances which are very plausible OTB when the player does not have
access to his database (and is tired, also the clock is ticking).

White to play and draw in all cases.







I have a megabase of approx 4 million games.

Some of you will have to.

Set it to find K & Q v K & R and draws.

You will find a few players have failed to get this win under 50 moves.

It's not easy. Play it v your box, take the K & Q.

I've have had to do and win this twice OTB. Once in an allegro game.
I was lucky my opponents alowed me to win their Rooks.
I had no set plan in mind, just setting wee traps.

I have copied this from:

http://www.jimloy.com/chess/kq-kr.htm

King Queen v King and Rook

In 1978, this ending received some publicity, when Ken Thompson's
program Belle played this ending against Walter Browne.

The conditions of the game were that Brown, with the queen,
had to win the game under tournament conditions

(I think they started with this position).



In particular, the 50 move rule applied.

And if Browne was not able to win, then Belle would be declared
the winner of the challenge.

Browne overstepped the 50 move limit, and lost the competition.

Browne won a rematch, a second game played after Browne
had some time to prepare, when he captured Belle's Rook
on the 50th move.

------------------

Finally here is an amusing stdy by Rinck 1917.

Down the staircase. Mate in 12.

1.Pin
2.Check
3.Pin
4.Check
5.Pin
6.Check
7.Pin
8.Check
9.Pin
10.Check
11.Pin
12.Mate

thanks much greenpawn34 for the erudite presentation...this pretty well answers my questions and then some....thus ends this thread.

Nowak should have played on.

I would have done for the benefit of all to see.
We might have seen a wee idea that we can store.

None of us are going to look at this ending in private
(you will say you will but we know you won't)
so a lesson was lost.

Nowak resigned too early. Boo!

Originally posted by dustycat
thanks much greenpawn34 for the erudite presentation...this pretty well answers my questions and then some....thus ends this thread.

The thread is not over. Nowaskowski who is ranked 1600 resigned yet there is no evidence (since he had no outside help) that he should resign at that stage. Even a Q+K vs a R+K is not a walk in the park and the situation is Q+K vs a R+K+P

Perhaps Nowaskowski can tell us why he resigned or do we have to guess why?

Yeah, cuz there's no way weyerstrass knows K+Q vs K+R!!!

Originally posted by no1marauder
IronMan31 won a similar endgame against me: http://www.redhotpawn.com/gameanalysis/boardhistory.php?gameid=1185140

It was said of him at the time that he played "advanced chess".

Your exact point being?

Originally posted by orion25
Yeah, cuz there's no way weyerstrass knows K+Q vs K+R!!!

I'm with you on this one. I'll sometimes continue to push in a lost ending on the site if I have some reservations about the other person's technique, but I have absolutely no doubt that the big W would pull it off.

Originally posted by C J Horse
Your exact point being?

Ironman who was one of 2400+ players was banned in 2005.

See the thread..So IronMan was a cheat...all 39 pages of it..

Thread 28693

Yes, I know. My point is that there is an earlier post in this thread saying that both players in the game play "advanced chess". To then link the words "advanced chess" to a player already banned for cheating is almost like implying that W and N are the same. Don't you think so? I do.

Here is the beginning of the analysis of the game mentioned. The engine used was firebird, in multi-line mode (3), and the depth reached was 17.
[Event "Challenge"]
[Site "http://www.redhotpawn.com"]
[Date "2009.09.12"]
[EndDate "2010.06.27"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Nowakowski"]
[Black "Weyerstrass"]
[WhiteRating "1629"]
[BlackRating "2441"]
[WhiteELO "1629"]
[BlackELO "2441"]
[Result "0-1"]
[GameId "6698090"]

1. e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nb1c3 Bf8b4 4. e5 c5 5. Ng1f3 cxd4 6.

Qd1xd4 Nb8c6 7. Qd4g4 Ng8e7
8. Qg4xg7 {takes game out of database, 1st} Rh8g8 {1st}
9. Qg7xh7 {1st} d4 {1st}
10. a3 {1st} Qd8a5 {1st}
11. Ra1b1 {1st} dxc3 {1st}
12. Bc1e3 {1st} Nc6xe5 {2nd}
13. axb4 {2nd} Ne5xf3 {1st}
14. gxf3 {1st} Qa5xb4 {1st}
15. Qh7e4 {2nd} Ne7d5 {1st}
16. Qe4xb4 {1st} Nd5xb4 {1st}
17. bxc3 {2nd} Nb4xc2 {1st}
18. Ke1d2 {1st} Nc2xe3 {1st}
19. fxe3 {1st} b6 {1st}
20. e4 {1st} e5 {1st}
21. h4 {1st} Bc8e6 {1st}
22. h5 {1st} Rg8h8 {1st}
23. Bf1b5 {3rd} Ke8e7 {1st}
24. h6 {1st} Rh8h7 {1st}
25. Rh1h5 {1st} f6 {1st}
26. Kd2e3 {1st} Ra8c8 {2nd}
27. Rb1c1 {1st} Rc8h8 {1st}
28. Rc1h1 {1st} Rh8g8 {2nd}
29. Rh5h2 {1st} Ke7d6 {3rd}
30. c4 {2nd} Kd6c5 {1st}
31. Bb5a6 Rg8d8
32. Rh2g2 Rh7d7 33. h7 Rd8h8 34. Rg2h2 Be6xc4 35. Ba6xc4

Kc5xc4 36. Rh2h6 b5
37. Rh6xf6 b4 38. Rf6c6 Kc4b5 39. Rh1c1 b3 40. Rc6c5 Kb5b4 41.

Rc1c4 Kb4a3
42. Rc5a5 Ka3b2 43. Ra5xe5 Rh8xh7 44. Re5c5 Rd7b7 45. e5 Kb2a2

46. Rc5a5 Ka2b1
47. f4 b2 48. e6 Rb7b6 49. Ra5e5 Rh7h3 50. Ke3d4 Kb1a2 51.

Rc4c2 Rb6b4
52. Kd4c5 Rh3c3 53. Kc5xb4 Rc3xc2 54. Re5a5 Ka2b1 55. Ra5e5 a5

56. Kb4xa5 Kb1a1
57. Re5b5 Rc2e2 58. f5 Re2e5 59. Rb5xe5 b1=Q 60. Re5b5 Qb1d3

61. Ka5b6 Qd3d6
62. Kb6a7 Ka1a2 63. Rb5b7 Qd6c5 64. Ka7a6 Qc5xf5 65. e7 Qf5e6

66. Ka6b5 Ka2b3
67. Rb7c7 Qe6e4 68. Kb5c5 Qe4e6 69. Kc5b5 Qe6d5 70. Kb5b6

Qd5d6 71. Kb6b5 Qd6e6
72. Kb5c5 Kb3c3 73. Rc7b7 Kc3d3 74. Rb7b3 Kd3e4 75. Rb3b7

Ke4e5 76. Rb7c7 Qe6d5
77. Kc5b6 Qd5b3 78. Kb6a7 Qb3b5 79. Rc7b7 Qb5e8 80. Rb7c7

Ke5d6 81. Ka7b6 Qe8b8
82. Rc7b7 Qb8c8 83. Kb6a7 Kd6c6 84. Rb7b6 Kc6c5 0-1

As one can see, there appears to be an amazing correlation between the moves made by the two players and the moves chosen by an engine.

No, this is not advanced chess. Advanced chess it's all about setting traps for the engine of your opponent. There openings like Hypo (where the engine cannot offer a reliable evaluation after the knight sacrifice) are frequent. The game in question is apparently an example where untitled players manage to play more computer-like than any other players in the history (OTB or CC world champions included).

Feel free to continue the analysis!

Originally posted by C J Horse
Yes, I know. My point is that there is an earlier post in this thread saying that both players in the game play "advanced chess". To then link the words "advanced chess" to a player already banned for cheating is almost like implying that W and N are the same. Don't you think so? I do.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_Chess

Advanced Chess (sometimes called cyborg chess or centaur chess) is a relatively new form of chess, first introduced by grandmaster Garry Kasparov, with the objective of a human player and a computer chess program playing as a team against other such pairs.[1] Many Advanced Chess proponents have stressed that Advanced Chess has merits in:

* increasing the level of play to heights never before seen in chess;
* producing blunder-free games with the qualities and the beauty of both perfect tactical play and highly meaningful strategic plans;
* giving the viewing audience a remarkable insight into the thought processes of strong human chess players and strong chess computers, and the combination thereof.

Think I have to disagree with these proponents.

Blunder-free and tactical perfect?
I doubt it.

Remarkable insight?
How?Are they personally going to explain it to me?

I'd already be happy if they came to explain their GM vs GM games without the engines 😉

toet.

Originally posted by toeternitoe
Think I have to disagree with these proponents.

Blunder-free and tactical perfect?
I doubt it.

Remarkable insight?
How?Are they personally going to explain it to me?

I'd already be happy if they came to explain their GM vs GM games without the engines 😉

toet.

You haven't seen 2700 or 2800 GMs blundering or missing tactical kills have you? Where have you been since the inception of chess?

Advanced chess is not played only by GMs. People like Ironman allegedly did so and beat the hell out of everyone. Someone ranked 1500 "in the flesh" could play at 2400-3000 level as a centaur and beat Magnus Carlsen "in the flesh".

http://premium1.uploadit.org/whoknows/Art/centaur-peter.jpg

Yes I have .Fairly recently even a mate in one,Kramnik I believe.Where have you been?
I also remember a missed mate in 4 in a WC game by Korchnoi against Karpov.Even I saw it.It happens.

And,uhm,the fact that I don't spot a missed tactic doesn't mean there wasn't one 😛

Same goes for the machines,they don't play perfect chess and I don't think human input will make it perfect either.
But that's just my opinion,kinda hard to prove either way.

toet.