jesus wtf are you guys insane, h4 is a very strong move, which is practically winning and it's a useful problem, stop nitpicking about random bs.

of course it's the best move, but there are practically no other candidate moves! Once you reject Bxh6 you have to play h4 almost by default.

The chess level of this board is extremely variable. What's obvious to you isn't everyone to everyone. I don't think Dire posted this for people rated 2000+ (no idea what your rating is but regardless of what it is you should realize that 80-90% of lurkers are likely to have no clue what to do here)

The idea that leads to almost a winning position, while all other moves are obviously much worse, is what matters here. Not some archaic possible much worse endgame that black will almost surely lose anyway.

Umm, I totally agree with Pyromantha that if you post "white to move and win," you should be able to show how the game is clearly won. If someone responds with a line that you can't find a win in, that's not trolling, that's exposing a flaw in your problem.

nope he's definitely trolling.

This reminds me of being in a chess class for 12 year olds rated 1300-1500, having some teacher show a position that's white to move and win, and I'm sitting and watching for whatever reason. Suddenly I see some defense 5 moves later, that's completely insane, has absolutely nothing to do with the theme of the position and maybe the opponent can get some very very worse position instead of being forced to resign right away. Am I going to interrupt the class to say "hey all you 1300's let's analyze this ridiculously long and pointless variation to prove that I'm smart and that this problem is flawed". No. Also the poster is using a computer engine to solve a problem and to actually post his computer generated analysis in the forum, without mentioning that he's doing so first is really annoying. He later claims "I never said I wasn't using a computer engine". Well it's pretty absurd to use an engine nonstop and not even mention it for 4 posts.

Dire is not posting this position so that some random guys who are using engines can argue about whether white can win some better position in 8 moves. If the guy wants to respectfully say "thanks for the problem, but it's funny that when I use my computer engine and look a bit deeper into some of these lines it actually seems that black can try to fight in some positions", then sure that's reasonable behavior.

But instead he's like "this seems like a draw, this is blah blah", as though he sees everything himself and it's obvious. Then he talks about how his endgame technique may be bad and he doesn't see how to win it how he needs some hints for the beginners (HEY GENIUS IF YOU ARE USING RYBKA, YOU DON'T NEED ANY HINTS!), when he's using a freaking computer engine. Honestly there should be a rule on this forum that anyone who uses a computer engine to solve a problem, should be required to state as such before giving any analysis. (also according to my engine after ...Rf8 in some line he gave Rf5 is easily winning, but v hard to follow what position they were talking about anyway....and it has black's best defense as ..Qc4 which does seem to lead to a ridiculous complicated draw.) It's just all extremely rude behavior to the person who posted the problem.


Of course I also have to criticize Dire because I believe that Qh5 is the best objective move in the position after gxh4, despite the fact that he claims that it isn't. Of course he didn't turn on his computer engine for 15 minutes to make sure and without doing so I'm sure I'd possibly conclude Re1 is the best.

Seriously people need to chill out with computer analysis because you don't learn anything from that kind of thing, and you'll simply reduce these problem threads to a complete waste of time.

Forgive my insane confrontational persona on this forum, it's just that so many people seem to have no sense of proper behavior when talking about chess. Acting like you are coming up with ideas in a thread like this when it's your computer is unbelievably rude and obnoxious. Whether it's people acting like they are better than they are, using computer analysis and trying to play it off like their own work, not having any empathy for the fact that 90% of the readers are not active tournament chess players and so just because a problem is easy to them they don't need to announce how obvious it is, or simply spouting complete crazy nonsense in an authoritative tone about how humans will be beating computers soon, it just drives me crazy.

Yadda yadda yadda yadda, the position is not a forced win. /thread

Well probably it is, just depends on your definition of forced.

Also let me make it clear, it was incorrect for Dire to post it as white to play and win (although I understand completely why he would think it's winning). I'm not saying that he should go show it to someone else as white to play and win (it should just be changed to "white to play".)

However the actions of this guy using a computer were completely out of line.

I just chicken out and post them as "Find White's best move" because that deals with this issue pretty well

that's cause you are an awesome poster.

Also Dire I enjoy your problems anyway so it is the thing to do to post more and not be discouraged

thanks

+1

FWIW Captain Rybka was absolutely tilting the hell out of me. Those people are always kibitzing in Supertournaments/USCL games on ICC; they're 1500 on average and magically become grandmasters thanks to hiarcs/rybka/fritz/shredder/whatever

If I was your teacher, I would appreciate you pointing out an alternative line because I could then change the position to account for it, but also to help students learn not to make rash decisions and consider even unorthodox plays. Chess positions aren't usually simple and straightforward, and I'd think you'd want to encourage, not discourage, creative thinking and not blindly following the given solution.

I agree with most of what you said about the lameness of using a computer to solve a tactics problem, but if I was Dire, I would have thanked him for the find, and maybe continued the discussion of whether the line ended up being a win for white. Instead, he attacks him for being a weak player and refuses to address his objections. I mean, which do you think would be more beneficial for the majority of this forum: finding h4 on that board, or analyzing a tricky endgame position that results from it?

.Alex.,

I am almost certain the vast majority of this forum are having plenty of trouble just finding the first move in this position. Deeply analyzing the rook up endgames that occur after like 15 more extremely high level moves for both sides is just completely outside this thread.

But as I already mentioned, I'd be more than happy to analyze the rook up endings in another thread. But this idea was ignored by him in favor of continuing to troll this thread. I even worked out a lengthy variation showing a way to make progress, but again - ignored in favor of trolling.

And I would never bash anybody for being a weak player. That is beyond ridiculous. I will bash somebody for pretending to be somebody or something they aren't however.

This really is a great idea. There is certainly room for the use of computers in analysis, as long as you are polite about it, but it can definitely get hugely problematic real fast. Rule #1 should definitely be that when you're making a comment based on computer analysis, YOU SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SAY SO. I would say that rule #2 should probably be that you should wait until non-computer-based discussion is exhausted. Just taking a tactic that was posted a couple hours ago, plugging it into Rybka, and saying "This is the answer!" helps noone. After discussion starts to die down, or when an argument starts to hit a stalemate point where noone is coming to agreement, THEN using a computer to double check things that were already discussed is probably fine (as long as you still follow rule #1 and disclaim it as such).

I wouldn't be opposed to these rules being stickied and mod enforced (though this probably wouldn't be feasible until/if this forum gets its own dedicated mod).

I am one of those crappy (wish I was 1500) players who enjoys following along with Supertournament games and watching Fritz analyze it (it's the only way I can watch the games and actually enjoy them, as the concepts are infinitely beyond me without assistance). It would never cross my mind to kibitz though, lol, it seems like if you're going to do that it should be a given that you'll just be lurking quietly.

I definitely co-sign the proposed rules.

+1.

Nothing against using an engine, but people who are doing that shouldn't ever be the first ones to offer "their" answer in the thread.