Annotations part 2

After one of my last games my opponent polity refused my invitation for a post-mortem. He didn't consider it useful and preferred to drink a beer quietly at the bar. Engines are today much stronger than any player so why wasting time at some lousy analysis. There is definitely some truth in this as with some simple clicks you can generate automatically an analysis which is many times more accurate. Besides in part 1 I advertised a method of annotating completely based upon evaluations of the engines.

The recent Penrose Chess Institute Puzzle demonstrates clearly the dangers of blindly trusting these evaluations. Engines show a winning score for black while any experienced player easily sees it is just a draw. One and a half year ago I wrote on this blog about computers achieve autonomy but this doesn't mean that we can't play any role anymore. The doom-scenario described in the recent article at chess.com "is this the future of chess" is just ballyhoo.

1 example of some fabricated position not looking close to any normal position in standard play doesn't refute the absolute dominance of the engines. Therefore some only consider positions from serious games relevant to judge about the supremacy of the computer. Do such positions exist which we as human can access quicker and more accurate than the current engines? If yes which ones?

In my article fortresses I already covered some positions of which we can prove that the computer-evaluations are inaccurate or even plainly wrong. However humans won't do necessarily better without using any tools. Nonetheless there exist some exceptions where we are stronger than engines. 1 group of endgames, opposite bishops stands out. An experienced player can often very quickly access correctly such position. In below position the engine is not eager to exchange the queens but Robert correctly values the endgame as harmless.

[Event "Klubkampioenschap Deurne r5"] [Date "2015"] [White "Schuermans, R."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C56"] [WhiteElo "2140"] [BlackElo "2330"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "6k1/p1pq2pp/1b6/2p5/2Pp3B/1P6/P5PP/4Q1K1 w - - 0 31"] [PlyCount "24"] 31. Qe7 {(Well judged by Robert as the endgame is an easy draw despite the pawn less. It is strange that my both top-engines still show a small advantage for black.)} Qxe7 32. Bxe7 Kf7 33. Bh4 Ke6 34. Kf2 h5 { (I also looked at g5 sacrificing a pawn, to get the king to e4 but I rightly rejected the move as it is far too risky.)} 35. Kf3 Ba5 36. Ke4 c6 37. h3 g6 38. g4 hxg4 39. hxg4 Bd2 40. Bd8 Bb4 41. Bh4 Bd2 42. Bd8 Bb4 {(The engines still do not want the draw but I had seen enough. There is nothing sensible to try.)} 1/2-1/2

In the final position the engine still gives a small edge for me but I was already for a long time convinced this is a dead draw. Another recent example is shown below. Again the engine calculates the position as better for white as black loses the c7 pawn. White still could continue instead of repeating moves but the draw is not hard to achieve of course.

[Event "Klubkampioenschap Deurne r3"] [Date "2016"] [White "Daenen, S."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "1/2-1/2"] [ECO "C56"] [WhiteElo "1750"] [BlackElo "2314"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/2pb1kp1/1bp4p/3pP3/pP1N1K1P/2P1B3/P5P1/8 b - b3 0 26"] [PlyCount "17"] 26... Bxd4 {(This forces the draw. Playing something else would only give white extra chances so I decided to stop all play.)} 27. cxd4 h5 28. Bc1 g6 29. Kg5 Bf5 30. a3 Bc8 31. Bf4 Bf5 32. Bd2 Bc8 33. Bf4 Bf5 34. Bd2 Bc8 { (White can still win the c7 pawn but black has no trouble to make a fortress. Serge did not want to prolong the game any further so agreed with the repetition of moves. Remarkably Serge barely used any time for the game while I was down to my last 5 minutes.)} 1/2-1/2

In both examples I consider it stupid to stick meticulously to my method of annotating. I exceptionally deviated from the evaluation of the engines and replaced them by my personal more accurate judgement.

In a recently played endgame I took it a step further in my annotations. Only a handful pawns are on one side of the board. The computer makes a complete mess when evaluating the played moves. Some moves are considered weak while there is nothing wrong. Others aren't annotated while there are clearly better ones. The original annotations linked to the evaluations of the engine can be found below.

[Event "Interclub Brasschaat - Deurne"] [Date "2017"] [White "Vrolijk, L."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A04"] [WhiteElo "2340"] [BlackElo "2304"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/6k1/1B2n2p/3R2p1/8/6P1/r4P1P/6K1 w - - 0 34"] [PlyCount "151"] 34. Kg2 $6 {(Te5 of Le3 /-)} Ra4 35. Be3 Kg6 36. Rb5 Rc4 37. Rb6 Kf5 $6 { (Kf7 /=)} 38. Kf3 Ra4 39. Ke2 Ra2 40. Kf1 Ra4 41. Rb8 Rc4 42. Kg2 Ra4 43. Bc1 $6 {(h3 /-)} Rc4 44. Bb2 Rc6 $6 {(h5 /=)} 45. Rb7 Kg6 46. Rb4 Rd6 47. Kf3 Nc5 48. Bd4 Ne6 49. Be3 Ng7 50. Ke4 $6 {(h3 /-)} Nf5 $6 {(g4 /=)} 51. Ke5 Ra6 52. Bc5 Rc6 53. Kd5 Rf6 54. Ra4 Rf7 55. Ra8 Rf6 56. Rc8 Ra6 57. Ke5 Ng7 58. Rd8 $6 {(h3 /-)} Rc6 $6 {(g4 /=)} 59. Be3 Re6 60. Kd5 Ra6 61. Rc8 $6 {(h3 /-)} Nf5 $6 {(g4 /=)} 62. Bc5 Ng7 63. g4 Ne6 64. Bd6 Ng7 65. Bg3 Ra5 66. Ke4 $6 { (Tc5 /-)} Ra4 67. Kf3 Ra6 $6 {(h5 /=)} 68. Be5 Ne6 69. Kg2 $6 {(Tg8 /-)} Ra5 70. Bg3 Ra6 71. Rb8 $6 {(Th8 /=)} Rc6 $2 {(h5 =)} 72. Rb5 $2 {(Tg8 /-)} Nd4 73. Rd5 Ne6 74. Ra5 Rb6 $2 {(h5 =)} 75. Be5 Rc6 76. Rb5 Rc5 77. Rxc5 Nxc5 78. Kf3 h5 79. h3 Ne6 80. Bd6 Nd8 81. Ke4 hxg4 82. hxg4 Kf6 83. Kd5 Ne6 84. Be5 Kf7 85. Kd6 Nf8 86. Bd4 Ng6 87. Bb6 Nf8 $6 88. Bd8 Kg6 89. Be7 Nh7 90. Ke6 Kg7 91. Kf5 Kh6 92. f3 Kg7 93. Bxg5 Kf7 94. Be3 Nf8 95. f4 Ng6 96. Kg5 Ne7 97. Bd4 Nd5 98. f5 Ne7 99. Kf4 Nd5 100. Ke4 Ne7 101. g5 Nc6 102. g6 Kg8 103. Bb2 Ne7 104. Ba3 Nc6 105. f6 Nd8 106. Kf5 Kh8 107. f7 Nxf7 108. gxf7 Kh7 109. f8=R 1-0

After swapping all this with my personal more accurate evaluations we get a very different image of the endgame. I assume this also much better matches our intuition of such type of endgame.

[Event "Interclub Brasschaat - Deurne"] [Date "2017"] [White "Vrolijk, L."] [Black "Brabo"] [Result "1-0"] [ECO "A04"] [WhiteElo "2340"] [BlackElo "2304"] [SetUp "1"] [FEN "8/6k1/1B2n2p/3R2p1/8/6P1/r4P1P/6K1 w - - 0 34"] [PlyCount "151"] 34. Kg2 $5 {(In the remaining analysis I will very often ignore the evaluations of the engine as they do not make sense. Here Re5 and Be3 are recommended but no win can be found.)} Ra4 35. Be3 Kg6 36. Rb5 Rc4 37. Rb6 Kf5 $5 {(Kf7 is probably a bit easier.)} 38. Kf3 Ra4 $6 { (Weird but if I just look at the traditional method of annotating then this is not a mistake. However I do not agree. H5 to prevent g4 is much stronger.)} 39. Ke2 $6 {(Again the engines do not look properly at this position. I worried during the game about g4 followed up by h4. Hours of analysis did not bring a final verdict. Some lines end in a tablebase in which a win in 60 moves is shown. I do not know if that win complies to the 50 moves-rule.) } (39. g4 $1 Ke5 40. Kg3 Ra1 41. h3 Rd1 $5 42. Rb4 $5 Kf6 43. h4 $5 Rg1 $1 44. Kh2 Ra1 45. Kg2 $5 Rd1 $5 $16) 39... Ra2 40. Kf1 Ra4 41. Rb8 Rc4 42. Kg2 Ra4 43. Bc1 $5 {(White tries something new but there is no progress. H3 is also possible but seems not very promising.)} Rc4 44. Bb2 Rc6 $5 { (I decide to wait. Active play with h5 is also playable.)} 45. Rb7 Kg6 46. Rb4 Rd6 47. Kf3 Nc5 48. Bd4 Ne6 49. Be3 Ng7 50. Ke4 $5 {(The bishop returned to e3 so white tries this time something with the king. Again h3 is also possible.)} Nf5 $5 {(Playing more active with g4 is an alternative but I prefer to wait.)} 51. Ke5 Ra6 52. Bc5 Rc6 53. Kd5 Rf6 54. Ra4 Rf7 55. Ra8 Rf6 56. Rc8 Ra6 57. Ke5 Ng7 58. Rd8 $5 {(Stalling time before making decisions is the best practical chance. H3 is still recommended by the engines.)} Rc6 $5 {(I also have time. I let white make the difficult decisions. G4 is possible but I was looking at the 50 moves-rule.)} 59. Be3 Re6 60. Kd5 Ra6 61. Rc8 $5 {(H3!?)} Nf5 $5 {(G4!?)} 62. Bc5 Ng7 63. g4 {(It has been 30 moves any pawn was played or any piece was taken. White decides to put the counter back to 0 before it must be done in a less attractive situation.)} Ne6 64. Bd6 Ng7 65. Bg3 Ra5 66. Ke4 $5 {(White still wants to maintain the rooks on the board as I still have a lot of time on my clock.)} Ra4 67. Kf3 Ra6 $5 {(I keep waiting although h5 is very interesting here.)} 68. Be5 Ne6 69. Kg2 $5 {(The more active Rg8 does not bring any dividends.)} Ra5 70. Bg3 Ra6 71. Rb8 $5 {(Th8!?)} Rc6 $5 {(H5!?)} 72. Rb5 $5 {(Tg8!?)} Nd4 73. Rd5 Ne6 74. Ra5 Rb6 $5 {(H5!?)} 75. Be5 Rc6 76. Rb5 {(Finally white allows the exchange of the rooks. I do not reject this offer as white can always force this. Besides I was getting low of time on the clock so liked to resolve the position quickly.)} Rc5 77. Rxc5 Nxc5 78. Kf3 h5 79. h3 Ne6 80. Bd6 Nd8 81. Ke4 hxg4 82. hxg4 {(This is a tablebase-draw. However white still wants to try as mistakes occur easily when there is not much time left.)} Kf6 83. Kd5 Ne6 84. Be5 Kf7 85. Kd6 Nf8 86. Bd4 Ng6 87. Bb6 Nf8 $2 {(I saw the drawing-mechanism with the knight at f7 which can be achieved via h8 but I was not sure. I feared some zugzwang. I had not enough time to study the position seriously and chose at the very last moment for a different setup. That is a big mistake.)} 88. Bd8 {(I missed this move and I immediately realized that I am lost. I still continue to play as I was too disappointed to resign already.)} Kg6 89. Be7 Nh7 90. Ke6 Kg7 91. Kf5 Kh6 92. f3 Kg7 93. Bxg5 Kf7 94. Be3 Nf8 95. f4 Ng6 96. Kg5 Ne7 97. Bd4 Nd5 98. f5 Ne7 99. Kf4 Nd5 100. Ke4 Ne7 101. g5 Nc6 102. g6 Kg8 103. Bb2 (103. f6 Ne7 104. fxe7 {(This was another cute stalemate which I saw during the game.)}) 103... Ne7 104. Ba3 Nc6 105. f6 Nd8 106. Kf5 Kh8 107. f7 Nxf7 108. gxf7 Kh7 109. f8=R {(I suspect my opponent did not mind to finalize this game in such funny way.)} 1-0

This endgame shows there is also often a clear difference between understanding and actual play. We are still much more prone to blunders especially when we are running out of time.

Objectivity/ searching the truth still get absolute priority in my analysis. Engine-evaluations are used intensively but it is still good not to ignore your own chess-knowledge.

Brabo