Move 39 discussion: Everyone vs stockfish

[MooMoo2]

The poll for move 38 just closed, and the most popular move was Nh4. Stockfish responded with 38...Rxh2, and the FEN is:
6k1/1R6/5p2/4n2p/7N/6P1/r6r/5RK1 w - - 0 39

Game so far: 1.e4 e6 2. d4 d5 3. Nd2 c5 4. Ngf3 Nf6 5. exd5 exd5 6. Bb5+ Bd7 7. Bxd7+ Nbxd7 8. O-O Be7 9. dxc5 Nxc5 10. Nb3 Nce4 11. Nfd4 O-O 12. Nf5 Re8 13. Nxe7+ Rxe7 14. f3 Nd6 15. Bg5 Nc4 16. Bxf6 gxf6 17. Qd4 Qb6 18. Qxb6 axb6 19. Rfd1 Re5 20. f4 Re2 21. Nd4 Re4 22. Nf5 Nxb2 23. Rxd5 Rxf4 24. g3 Rc4 25. Nh6+ Kg7 26. Nf5+ Kf8 27. Rd7 Rxc2 28. Nh6 Kg7 29. Nf5+ Kg6 30. Nh4+ Kg7 31. Nf5+ Kh8 32. Rxf7 Nd3 33. Rxb7 Ne5 34. Rf1 h5 35. Rxb6 Raxa2 36. Rb8+ Kh7 37. Rb7+ Kg8 38. Nh4 Rxh2

[gd_barnes]

Not much question here: 39. Rxf6.

[WMHalsdorf]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Not much question here: 39. Rxf6.

I agree.

[The Carnivore]

Get three more pieces off the board after 39. Rxf6, and we can use the 7-man tablebases to force a draw.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

Get three more pieces off the board after 39. Rxf6, and we can use the 7-man tablebases to force a draw.

Hmm.

I'm not sure if we made this clear at the start of the game or not, but the use of tablebases should be outlawed in my opinion. It's like using an engine for the main part of the game, the only difference being that the play is guaranteed to be perfect.

The site where I play CC, chess.com, outlaws both general engine use and tablebase use while allowing the use of databases of played games.

What do others think about tablebase use? It's a good idea to sort it out now, I suggest, before we get into tablebase territory.

[gd_barnes]

Using an end game database is no different than using an opening database. It should be allowed, especially if SF refuses to accept a draw in a known drawn ending. After all, we use opening books and end game books. Why not use both opening and end game databases? Further, once endgame databases are created, they do not "calculate" the moves. They just use table lookup like an opening database. They are effectively end games that are already stored just like opening databases are. There is no software calcuating a position.

Regardless I think we can get SF to accept a draw before 7 pieces remain. In many variations there is a swap of rooks, which gets us down to 8 pieces, but it takes quite a while to remove at least one of the remaining pawns.

If this game gets too boring with SF refusing to accept a draw in a clear drawn position, I vote that we should restart the game with the different variation. To me, the game is already starting to get a little boring at this point. It's almost played itself for several moves now.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by gd_barnes

Using an end game database is no different than using an opening database. It should be allowed, especially if SF refuses to accept a draw in a known drawn ending. After all, we use opening books and end game books. Why not use both opening and end game databases? Further, once endgame databases are created, they do not "calculate" the moves. They just use table lookup like an opening database. They are effectively end games that are already stored just like opening databases are. There is no software calcuating a position.[...]

A valid point of view of course.

But I think we should note that endgame tablebases are fundamentally different from openings databases, openings books and endgame books. The latter three are all based on human chess-playing experience and general heuristics.

You say that with tablebases there is no software calculating a position, but software was used to produce the tablebases in the first place.

[The Carnivore]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

But I think we should note that endgame tablebases are fundamentally different from openings databases, openings books and endgame books. The latter three are all based on human chess-playing experience and general heuristics.

You say that with tablebases there is no software calculating a position, but software was used to produce the tablebases in the first place.

Not necessarily. I know of at least one opening database that's based on computer analysis:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/fritz-1...etting-started
http://en.chessbase.com/post/analyzi...let-s-check-i-

If we were at move 3 of the game, could we have used that database?

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by The Carnivore

Not necessarily. I know of at least one opening database that's based on computer analysis:
http://en.chessbase.com/post/fritz-1...etting-started
http://en.chessbase.com/post/analyzi...let-s-check-i-

If we were at move 3 of the game, could we have used that database?

Those software-generated openings databases are in the "grey area" of whether they should be allowed. There has been a lot of discussion on chess.com about whether those are okay to be consulted during CC or not.