4/24/2017 – In March there was an international furore over a chess position, published by famous mathematics professor Sir Roger Penrose. It purported to show a key difference between human and computer thinking, and have general implications for our understanding of Artificial Intelligence. The example was unconvincing, but as a reaction a number of chess players and AI researchers have sent us papers we want to share with you. We start with a challenge to humans and machines issued by GM Miguel Illescas.
Winning starts with what you know
The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.
Winning starts with what you know The new version 18 offers completely new possibilities for chess training and analysis: playing style analysis, search for strategic themes, access to 6 billion Lichess games, player preparation by matching Lichess games, download Chess.com games with built-in API, built-in cloud engine and much more.
In almost every chess game there comes a moment when you just can’t go on without tactics. You must strike to not giving away the advantage you have worked for the whole game.
€32.90
In March there was an international furore over a chess position, published by mathematics professor Sir Roger Penrose, who gained world-wide renown in 1988 by working out black hole singularities together with Stephen Hawking. The chess problem was devised to defeat an artificially intelligent (AI) computer but be solvable for humans: “We plugged it into Fritz, the standard practice computer for chess players, which did three-quarters of a billion calculations, 20 moves ahead," explained James Tagg Co-Founder and Director of the Penrose Institute. "It says that one side or the other wins. But," Tagg continued, "the answer that it gives is wrong."
You can move the pieces to analyse on the board
We reported on the Penrose problem, and confirmed that chess engines give a very high evaluation in favour of Black, who has a huge material advantage. But the pieces are all constricted and cannot be used against the lone white king, supported by four pawns. Humans will recognize that it is trivially easy for White to hold the draw, but computers display a +25-30 pawn advantage for Black – while defending perfectly with white! Not the best example of the difference between human and machine thinking.
I described a similar situation that occurred in a well-publicized game between IM David Levy and the computer program CHESS 4.8 in 1979. Levy had a queen and the computer a c-pawn on the seventh rank. It thought it was completely lost but defended the position perfectly to a draw.
In the first article I gave an example of a more relevant position, one in which there is a theoretical draw that humans can find, but where computer will play the wrong move and actually lose:
White to play and draw
Here the correct first move for White, who is at an overwhelming material disadvantage, is to sacrifice even more material. It is the only way to secure a draw: White must play 1.Ba4+!, and after 1...Kxa4 play b3+, c4+, d5+, e6+ and finally f5 to completely lock up the position. This is a much more relevant test, as chess engines, playing the white side, will actually select the wrong strategy and lose the game – while in the Penrose position computers think that White is losing, but hold the draw without any problem.
After the above articles appeared I received a number of very interesting emails, which I intend to share with our readers over the next few weeks. They have to do mainly with the fortress theme and the way it is handled by computers. Today I will start with a communication from Miguel Illescas, a top Spanish GM and trained computer scientist, who worked for the Deep Blue team that beat World Champion Garry Kasparov in 1997. Miguel wrote:
"Several years ago I shared with my colleague [from the Deep Blue team] Murray Campbell an idea to make the computer 'understand' a fortress, but nobody has done it so far (I think). It looks simple to me: if the evaluation of several best moves is exactly the same and it stays stable it means there is no win. If that is true it shows computer programmers are not interested to solve something which is so unlikely to happen – or they are simply lazy!"
The Illescas Challenge
Together with this message I received a challenge which I pass on to our readers:
White to play and draw
You are invited to analyse the position here on our news page, or show it to your favourite chess engine (FEN: 1r6/1n1R1b2/8/1p1p3k/pPpPp1p1/2P1P3/P2K1PP1/8 w - - 0 1) and solve it with machine assistance. The solution and analysis will be added to this article in a few days – after which I will share the thoughts and ideas of other AI scientist on chess positions that are difficult for computers to comprehend.
Solution
New ...
New Game
Edit Game
Setup Position
Open...
PGN
FEN
Share...
Share Board (.png)
Share Board (configure)
Share playable board
Share game as GIF
Notation (PGN)
QR Code
Layout...
Use splitters
Swipe notation/lists
Reading mode
Flip Board
Settings
Move
N
Result
Elo
Players
Replay and check the LiveBook here
Please, wait...
1.Rxb7‼1.Rxf7g3!2.fxg3Nd63.Rf6Rd84.Ke2Kg5with advantage for Black.1...Rf8!1...Rxb72.g3!Kg53.Ke2Rb64.Kf1Rh65.Kg2 Draw.2.g3!Kg6!3.Rb6+!3.Ke2Rh84.Rxb5Rh15.Ra5Be8! with advantage for Black.3...Kg74.Rh6‼Kxh65.Ke2!Kg56.Kf1!Rh87.Kg2a38.Kg1!Ra89.Kg2Ra410.Kf1!Be611.Ke1Ra812.Kf1!Bf713.Kg2Ra414.Kf1Draw.½–½
This was my original study in 2006. I first thought that1.Rxb7!but Black can play1.Rxf7g3!1...Rf8‼White still triesAfter1...Rxb72.g3!Rb63.Ke2Kg54.Kf1Rh65.Kg2=2.g3!but after2.Ke2g3!2...Kg6!the black rook will reach h1 one day and White is definitely worst.
Frederic FriedelEditor-in-Chief emeritus of the ChessBase News page. Studied Philosophy and Linguistics at the University of Hamburg and Oxford, graduating with a thesis on speech act theory and moral language. He started a university career but switched to science journalism, producing documentaries for German TV. In 1986 he co-founded ChessBase.
In this insightful video course, Grandmaster David Navara shares practical advice on when to calculate deeply in a position — and just as importantly, when not to.
The Trompowsky is especially suited for faster time controls as you don‘t have to memorise endless lines of theory, and you push your opponent out of their comfort zone after your second move.
Trompowsky Powerbook 2025 is based on 53,000 computer games from the engine room of playchess.com as well as 49,000 games from Mega and correspondence chess.
Trompowsky Powerbase 2025 is a database and contains a total of 8727 games from Mega 2025 and the Correspondence Database 2024, of which 316 are annotated.
2025 European Championship with a German double victory and analyses by Bluebaum, Svane, Rodshtein, Yuffa, Navara and many more. Opening videos by Engel, King and Marin. Training sections “The Fortress”, “The Trap” and “Fundamental Endgame Knowledge" etc.
In this dynamic and practical video course, IM Andrew Martin arms you with powerful antidotes to White’s most annoying sidelines.
€34.90
We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, analysis cookies and marketing cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies. Here you can make detailed settings or revoke your consent (if necessary partially) with effect for the future. Further information can be found in our data protection declaration.
Pop-up for detailed settings
We use cookies and comparable technologies to provide certain functions, to improve the user experience and to offer interest-oriented content. Depending on their intended use, cookies may be used in addition to technically required cookies, analysis cookies and marketing cookies. You can decide which cookies to use by selecting the appropriate options below. Please note that your selection may affect the functionality of the service. Further information can be found in our privacy policy.
Technically required cookies
Technically required cookies: so that you can navigate and use the basic functions and store preferences.
Analysis Cookies
To help us determine how visitors interact with our website to improve the user experience.
Marketing-Cookies
To help us offer and evaluate relevant content and interesting and appropriate advertisement.