4 ms·

> I think this is really quite difficult even with the wildest of hand-waving It's difficult for computers! But humans can do it. An 1800 armed with computer a

> I think this is really quite difficult even with the wildest of hand-waving It's difficult for computers! But humans can do it. An 1800 armed with computer analysis (so he knows the right moves) can say with some confidence "this position looks difficult for a grandmaster".

somenameforme 2y ago
I think an 1800 with computer analysis would never say R+B v R looks difficult for a GM without external knowledge of the fact that it is.
- dmurray 2y ago
  It's hard to isolate the external knowledge. If R+B v R came up once every 50 games, every GM and probably every 2000 would know it inside out.
  - ANewFormation 2y ago
    There isn't a GM that hasn't studied RBvB, and most have also played numerous games with it. But it's just very difficult to execute properly. Let a 2000 go study it for weeks - he'd still lose it against strong play. People often see chess as just a game of knowledge, but in practice it's much more like a skill in that for a strong player they'll generally see the right move(s) in a position near instantly. The time spent is then just comparing and double checking stuff. This is why you might see in e.g. a press conference some journalist ask why the player didn't play 34. Ne5, and they'll think for a few seconds, go ooooo wow as they rapidly work out the [invariably computer generated] idea, and then respond that they simply didn't consider it. This is how players like Magnus are so strong and why the time control doesn't really matter - his intuition just tends to quickly lead him to better ideas than for other players.
    - dmurray 2y ago
      > But it's just very difficult to execute properly. Let a 2000 go study it for weeks - he'd still lose it against strong play I don't agree. People lose this one because they haven't looked at it recently. I would be willing to take this as a bet. Train with the computer for weeks, and then I get to defend the endgame against a computer or a tricky human. (I'm a bit stronger than 2000 but I could find someone else).
      - ANewFormation 2y ago
        Consider my side of the bet eating crow with a side that, if you're right, then you'll have mastered arguably the single most important basic ending. I'd strongly recommend checking out an endgame manual or a youtube video on the proper way(s) to draw it. It's going to take a lot longer than weeks if you just try to learn it through experience. For further incentivization I can practically guarantee you will also gain rating points if you succeed here - it really requires substantial 'feel' for how rook and bishop can work together (as well as certain stalemate tricks and more), and that's applicable far outside just this ending - same how learning to mate with B+N really improves your feel for how those pieces can collaborate. But I'm not sure you appreciate what you're getting into here. R v R+B makes B+N look like child's play. Do let me know if you're seriously going to try this. I'd honestly just like to know how it goes, and can just hit you up in a couple of weeks in some rando thread. It'd be pretty awesome if you succeed!
        dmurray 2y ago
        > the single most important basic ending This just isn't right. According to de la Villa (whose book is a great trainer on this endgame among others) this balance comes up 1 time in 5000, compared to RPPvR or PPvP which each occurred more than 10x as often. Ok, some of those are trivial, but there are many more half-points to be had by studying those. I have studied this endgame before to the point where I was confident in holding it (mostly based on the selected defences given by de la Villa, which I reckon cover almost all positions), but I confess I didn't practice it against a tablebase. I also lost this the one time I had it over the board.

somenameforme 2y ago

I think an 1800 with computer analysis would never say R+B v R looks difficult for a GM without external knowledge of the fact that it is.

dmurray 2y ago
It's hard to isolate the external knowledge. If R+B v R came up once every 50 games, every GM and probably every 2000 would know it inside out.
- ANewFormation 2y ago
  There isn't a GM that hasn't studied RBvB, and most have also played numerous games with it. But it's just very difficult to execute properly. Let a 2000 go study it for weeks - he'd still lose it against strong play. People often see chess as just a game of knowledge, but in practice it's much more like a skill in that for a strong player they'll generally see the right move(s) in a position near instantly. The time spent is then just comparing and double checking stuff. This is why you might see in e.g. a press conference some journalist ask why the player didn't play 34. Ne5, and they'll think for a few seconds, go ooooo wow as they rapidly work out the [invariably computer generated] idea, and then respond that they simply didn't consider it. This is how players like Magnus are so strong and why the time control doesn't really matter - his intuition just tends to quickly lead him to better ideas than for other players.
  - dmurray 2y ago
    > But it's just very difficult to execute properly. Let a 2000 go study it for weeks - he'd still lose it against strong play I don't agree. People lose this one because they haven't looked at it recently. I would be willing to take this as a bet. Train with the computer for weeks, and then I get to defend the endgame against a computer or a tricky human. (I'm a bit stronger than 2000 but I could find someone else).
    - ANewFormation 2y ago
      Consider my side of the bet eating crow with a side that, if you're right, then you'll have mastered arguably the single most important basic ending. I'd strongly recommend checking out an endgame manual or a youtube video on the proper way(s) to draw it. It's going to take a lot longer than weeks if you just try to learn it through experience. For further incentivization I can practically guarantee you will also gain rating points if you succeed here - it really requires substantial 'feel' for how rook and bishop can work together (as well as certain stalemate tricks and more), and that's applicable far outside just this ending - same how learning to mate with B+N really improves your feel for how those pieces can collaborate. But I'm not sure you appreciate what you're getting into here. R v R+B makes B+N look like child's play. Do let me know if you're seriously going to try this. I'd honestly just like to know how it goes, and can just hit you up in a couple of weeks in some rando thread. It'd be pretty awesome if you succeed!
      - dmurray 2y ago
        > the single most important basic ending This just isn't right. According to de la Villa (whose book is a great trainer on this endgame among others) this balance comes up 1 time in 5000, compared to RPPvR or PPvP which each occurred more than 10x as often. Ok, some of those are trivial, but there are many more half-points to be had by studying those. I have studied this endgame before to the point where I was confident in holding it (mostly based on the selected defences given by de la Villa, which I reckon cover almost all positions), but I confess I didn't practice it against a tablebase. I also lost this the one time I had it over the board.