Author: Peter McKenzie
Date: 01:43:32 07/21/04
Go up one level in this thread
On July 20, 2004 at 18:40:07, David Dahlem wrote:
>On July 20, 2004 at 12:52:38, Rémi Coulom wrote:
>
>>On July 20, 2004 at 12:35:39, Fabien Letouzey wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Launchpad/2640/pgn/tests/
>>>
>>>NET.zip
>>>
>>>Fabien.
>>
>>Great, thanks !
>>
>>Rémi
>
>[Event "1/99-60 John Nunn"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "1998.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET01: Rook Ending"]
>[Black "[+0400.66f2f7]"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]8/1ppr1kp1/p1p4p/8/8/5P2/PPP1RKPP/8 w - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>
>{A position which might have arisen from the Exchange Variation of the Spanish.
>White's better pawn structure gives him some advantage, since he can create a
>passed pawn on the kingside while Black, owing to his doubled pawns, cannot do
>the same on the queenside. It is not clear if this advantage is sufficient to
>win. In practical play I would expect wins and draws to be about equally
>divided.} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Budapest"]
>[Site "Budapest"]
>[Date "1952.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET02: Barcza"]
>[Black "Golombek"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]8/1pk3pp/p7/3p1p2/8/3K2P1/PP2PP1P/8 w - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1952.??.??"]
>
>{This endgame certainly favours White. Black's pawn structure is inferior
>because of the isolated d-pawn, while White's king is the first to occupy the
>fourth rank. White has the obvious plan of putting his king on d4 followed by
>using zugzwang to penetrate with his king to c5 or e5. This was in fact the
>plan adopted by Barcza in the game, but accurate defence by Golombek enabled
>him to hold the draw. Later (in 1966) Bondarevsky analysed the ending and
>concluded that White could win with a different and far from obvious plan:
>playing Ke3, threatening Kf4 and inducing Black to weaken his kingside pawn
>structure further by playing ...g5. It is hard to say whether this is correct,
>but at any rate it is clear that this position is finely poised between a draw
>and a win.} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 John Nunn"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "1998.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET03: Database position"]
>[Black "[+4000.10b2f4]"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]2q5/8/6Q1/8/1P3k2/8/1K6/8 w - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>
>{Including a database position is perhaps a little controversial, but why not?
>A program which uses the 5-man databases will play the endgame more strongly
>than one which does not, so this should be a part of the Nunn-test The
>database shows that this position is a win, but only by 1 Qd6+!. If neither
>side has access to a database, it is harder to predict the result; between
>human players I would expect White to win more often than not.} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Telegraph match"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "1896.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET04: St Petersburg"]
>[Black "London"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]8/4k3/r4pp1/pR6/P4KP1/5P2/8/8 b - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1896.??.??"]
>
>{A classic ending. The game was halted at this point with London conceding the
>game. Chigorin then published some analysis claiming that White could win. For
>decades this was the accepted opinion, but theory advances and it gradually
>became recognised that defending such position often requires the sacrifice of
>the weak pawn (on a5 here). Fine, in his book Basic Chess Endings, suggested
>that this plan should lead to a draw. His analysis contained some errors, and
>was refined by Levenfish and Smyslov in their classic book Rook Endings. They
>supported Fine's conclusion, although some of the detailed variations differed
>from Fine's. That is the state of play today. Can computers unravel a position
>which took human analysts over half a century to unravel?.} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Dresden"]
>[Site "Dresden"]
>[Date "1936.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET05: Keres"]
>[Black "Alekhine"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]8/p1p1k3/1p1p2p1/3Pq2p/2P1P3/1P3QPK/P7/8 w - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1936.??.??"]
>
>{In this game between two of the leading players of the pre-war period, Black
>has the advantage because he can create a kingside passed pawn while White,
>thanks to his backward e-pawn, cannot create a passed pawn. However, in a
>queen ending matters are never so easy, due to the ever-present danger of
>perpetual check. In the game Black did succeed in winning after a hard fight,
>although Konstantinopolsky later suggested an improvement for White which
>might have placed Black's win in doubt.} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Uzhgorod"]
>[Site "?"]
>[Date "1972.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET06: Holmov"]
>[Black "Moiseev"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]8/p3ppk1/1p4pp/3nN3/6PP/1P3P2/P3PK2/8 w - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1972.??.??"]
>
>{A tricky knight ending. White won the game, but the winner's very detailed
>analysis (covering several pages) suggested that the correct result should be
>a draw.} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Cetinje"]
>[Site "Cetinje"]
>[Date "1992.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET07: Ilincic"]
>[Black "Cabrilo"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]7k/pp4pp/2n5/8/8/P7/1P4PP/2K1B3 b - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1992.??.??"]
>
>{Although this position appears fairly drawish White won the game, and in his
>notes indicated no real improvement for Black. However, I analysed this ending
>in my book Secrets of Practical Chess, and came to the conclusion that it
>should probably be a draw. What do the machines think?} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Siegen"]
>[Site "Siegen"]
>[Date "1970.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET08: Bellon"]
>[Black "Minic"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]8/8/p4Bp1/1pPb2P1/1P2kp2/P7/5K2/8 w - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1970.??.??"]
>
>{A fantastic position. An opposite-coloured bishop position with equal pawns
>looks as if it should be a draw, and indeed the players agreed to a draw at
>this point. However, White a serious problems because of his weak a3-pawn,
>which cannot be permanently defended by his bishop. Once this pawn has been
>captured, Black has the chance to make a second passed pawn by playing ...a5,
>which will stretch White's defence to the utmost. Dvoretsky and Yusupov
>subjected this ending to detailed analysis, and came to the astonishing
>conclusion that it is a draw, but only if White starts with the incredible 1
>c6!!. It is hard to imagine that any machine would find such a move, but who
>knows what might happen in the future...} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Semmering-Baden"]
>[Site "Semmering"]
>[Date "1937.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET09: Eliskases"]
>[Black "Capablanca"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]8/4k3/p1B4p/2K5/1P4bP/8/8/8 b - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1937.??.??"]
>
>{Another classic ending. White has little trouble winning the a-pawn, but will
>this be enough to win the game? White is handicapped by the fact that his
>bishop is the wrong colour for the h-pawn, so even winning Black's bishop may
>not be sufficient. In the game White won, but various analysts who have
>examined this ending in detail have come to the conclusion that Black should
>draw with accurate play. But if even the great Capablanca could not find the
>draw, can a machine?} *
>
>[Event "1/99-60 Hannover"]
>[Site "Hannover"]
>[Date "1926.??.??"]
>[Round "?"]
>[White "NET10: von Gottschall"]
>[Black "Nimzowitsch"]
>[Result "*"]
>[Annotator "John Nunn"]
>[SetUp "1"]
[D]3R4/1p6/2b5/2P1k2p/p3p2P/P6r/1P2KB2/8 b - -
>[PlyCount "0"]
>[EventDate "1926.??.??"]
>
>{Once again we have opposite-coloured bishops and equal material, but here the
>defender's task is complicated by the presence of rooks. Indeed, the practical
>difficulties proved too much for White in the game, and he lost. However,
>later analysts indicated possible improvements for White - my own view is
>that the ending should be a draw, but it would certainly be unpleasant to
>defend against a strong endgame player.} *
>
>Regards
>Dave
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.