This problem was in M.Blokh's book.
BTW My stockfish (dev version 06222023), or version 16 (probably the same build, released today) saw the answer instantly (after 25...Re8??)
Using a i9 13900K.
BTW My stockfish (dev version 06222023), or version 16 (probably the same build, released today) saw the answer instantly (after 25...Re8??)
Using a i9 13900K.
Thanks Jerry keep up the hard work
Seeing 27. h5 to the end is insane. There are so many branches to the tree after 26. Rd6, to follow them all is beyond 5-head (we will call it 6-Head). This is why GM Tony Miles famously said about Kasparov, "I thought I was playing the World Champion, not a monster with a thousand eyes who sees everything." Tru dat. Kasparov is a monster with 1000 eyes. Time to get out my Kasparov books...(ebooks, of course). Thanks, Jerry.
<Comment deleted by user>
To CLAIM, as Mr K does.....if it is he ,how claims it, is just stupid. If STOCKFISH was then and NOW the best chesscomputer on the planet, everybody know that no human has ever defeated STOCKFISH in loooong time play of chess. EVER. Never has it been a chessplayer how have taken the time to play a looongtime chessgame. Soe the "the depth" of STOCKFISH is UNKNOWN. However, there are no computer that can beat a human in a game like that because its only the human ho can realy make a looooongtime strategy in the game of chess and seen it is humans ho have bild the program butt NEVER EVER to be testet that way becuase they have not putt in the TIME it takes to make a loooongtime- strategy-chessprogram then " lett the depth of STOCKFISH" is best to rest. However, why dont al of the "chessreporters" on the planet ASK the 30 best chessplayers on the planet the last 20-30 years WHY THEY HAVE NOTT PLAYD agaainst this "super -computer" in a looong-timechessgame? I belive they have and the answer is from this players: IT LOOKS REALY BAD FORE MY CHESSCAREER , if i lose to it.
I did not expect clickbaiting in Lichess!
Of course Stockfish "appreciates" all the moves played in the game just fine, and it is unethical to imply that Stockfish does not "see" 27.h5 - of course it does, in less than a second, and it rates it as the strongest move (so, I cannot understand what "aesthetic" Stockfish does not appreciate). A thousand dislikes.
Of course Stockfish "appreciates" all the moves played in the game just fine, and it is unethical to imply that Stockfish does not "see" 27.h5 - of course it does, in less than a second, and it rates it as the strongest move (so, I cannot understand what "aesthetic" Stockfish does not appreciate). A thousand dislikes.
Stockfish sees h5 immediately and assesses it as +5 for white.
I analysed it here, Stockfish 15.1, 1 core, 256 MB of hash, 7 seconds per move; move 27.h5 Stockfish does not see it and gives draw. 8 seconds per move Stockfish sees it, and says white wins.
But I did not installed this Stockfish, it came with the program. Maybe it is not the bmi2, or AVX2 version, maybe it is just the 32 bit version, which is slower.