I wanna know why Stockfish cannot even solve this EASY Mate in 13. Even with a numbercrunching algorithm it should be able to see this.
It solves it in a couple of seconds, even if you put the b5 pawn at c5 (when it is mate in 15).
I wanna know why Stockfish cannot even solve this EASY Mate in 13. Even with a numbercrunching algorithm it should be able to see this.
It solves it in a couple of seconds, even if you put the b5 pawn at c5 (when it is mate in 15).
Well my device is android, so it probably doesn't go into as high a depth.
Now it is 16 lol and with every black piece on the board to start!
We already gave opinions about it. But don't ask some here to think...
Then explain how someone proved that black is winning in the most recent analysis where the endgame ended up being Knight+Bishop+Rook vs. Queen + 3 pawns?
We already gave opinions about it. But don't ask some here to think...
Then explain how someone proved that black is winning in the most recent analysis where the endgame ended up being Knight+Bishop+Rook vs. Queen + 3 pawns?
Alltheusernamestaken gave some moves after final position of the game given by pfren where white resigned.
This position is a win for black, and i don't see how can a bunch a moves given by this guy proves anything.
Stronger players thought it was lost, u refuse it and give/accept bad analysis. When we correct your analysis (in general), u continue or say u were right anyway. So why arguiing with u if u know all the truth begin a 1700?
Also, this mate in 67 should be quite easy for Stockfish given that it involves only 5 simple steps:
We already gave opinions about it. But don't ask some here to think...
Then explain how someone proved that black is winning in the most recent analysis where the endgame ended up being Knight+Bishop+Rook vs. Queen + 3 pawns?
Alltheusernamestaken gave some moves after final position of the game given by pfren where white resigned.
This position is a win for black, and i don't see how can a bunch a moves given by this guy proves anything.
Stronger players thought it was lost, u refuse it and give/accept bad analysis. When we correct your analysis (in general), u continue or say u were right anyway. So why arguiing with u if u know all the truth begin a 1700?
Stockfish analyzed that position, he didn't just give random good moves.
ok so what's the point?
Black resigned, and Stockfish agrees.
So what?
I'm so sorry, I thought about Ke2, I hope you can find it in your heart to forgive me.
ok so what's the point?
Black resigned, and Stockfish agrees.
So what?
WHITE resigned in that last analysis
We already gave opinions about it. But don't ask some here to think...
Then explain how someone proved that black is winning in the most recent analysis where the endgame ended up being Knight+Bishop+Rook vs. Queen + 3 pawns?
Alltheusernamestaken gave some moves after final position of the game given by pfren where white resigned.
This position is a win for black, and i don't see how can a bunch a moves given by this guy proves anything.
Stronger players thought it was lost, u refuse it and give/accept bad analysis. When we correct your analysis (in general), u continue or say u were right anyway. So why arguiing with u if u know all the truth begin a 1700?
You are making shit up now I never refused it and some of your "strong" players refuse to even give the moves unless you pay them because that is a cop-out since they know they might be wrong. Explain how a knight and king can win against 2 pawns and a queen?? How the hell is post# 103 a win for white???
I don't know how anyone got the idea that White was ok in that position (where indeed the player with the White pieces resigned and Pfren didn't think it needed explanation.) It seems it is true that Poucin did make a typo and say Black resigned something like the third time this asked and answered question went around for some reason but it's really obvious what he meant; I didn't even notice the typo till it was pointed out.
Maybe, whatever. This is the reason endgames need to be studied more. 3 pieces vs a queen and pawns..isn't necessarily a win..hence my username
I can see that, but Black does have *a lot* of pawns in that position. If White were ok despite how it looks that would be surprising and in that case I could see wanting analysis to prove it. What it seems happened here is that game was shown to prove White was busted and people asked for analysis after the final position, then showed analysis which confirmed, which is ok too, but on top of that there was miscommunication and more, and yet in this thread there is good analysis of a few Traxler lines which could provide a resource to those who can sift through the rest.
Agreed, because all you have to do is mess up 1 move in all variations and your mated.
ok so what's the point?
Black resigned, and Stockfish agrees.
So what?
Sorry to completely nullify your point but black is completely wining and stockfish calculating at 33 depth agrees
Maybe, whatever. This is the reason endgames need to be studied more. 3 pieces vs a queen and pawns..isn't necessarily a win..hence my username
Black has an active queen in a 14 vs 12 material balance where withe has king on e2 that need all the pieces to defend him while black has passed pawns on both sides of the board that will be marching down unstoppable.
They can say whatever they want... their only argument is that they have a higer elo so they are right 
We already gave opinions about it. But don't ask some here to think...