it's not a solution though, since it ends in a draw. But yes I agree, it's not ruining.

@@BigDBrian black was losing, but ended up getting a draw, so it's a solution, just not for white

@@whackygamer19 Yes

But, when you look at it logically, attacking bishop straight away is not at all that complex move, no?

People keep saying there's a black pawn on a4.

@@hrsmp and knew that the transition will happen

@@aggressivepvp At least 55 years ago, when I was in college, everybody who was at all knowledgeable about computers knew that the technology was progressing so fast that next year's computer would render this year's obsolete. A teacher told us, tongue-in-cheek, that if you ordered a computer today (back then) and another in a month, the second computer would be cheaper, more powerful, and would arrive sooner. A bit of hyperbole, but illustrating the fast pace of development. This, of course, was long before microchips. Yeah, we knew it was going by leaps and bounds.

@@danielschechter8130 Thank you for sharing your experience with us :) I was born in 94

It's very important to bear in mind that having faster hardware is only a piece of the solution. The equally big piece is figuring out how to write the software that allows a computer to play chess efficiently. I am a retired programmer who majored in Computer Science in the 1970's and I can tell you that the algorithms needed to do this hadn't been figured out yet. For example, when I was in school, we students were asked things like, how would you represent a chess position in a computer? How would you evaluate that position? Find threats? Discover attacks? Look several moves ahead? Figuring out newer and better ways to do this and more, repeatedly, has been a large part of the work! I also want to mention, for anyone reading this who isn't into computers, that hardware and software advances occur together. While transistors were a physics discovery, modern computer hardware is only possible with advanced software. As hardware advances occur it gives us programmers more time and space (i.e. processing power and computer memory), and then we come up with solutions that wouldn't have been feasible previously. So we then write more sophisticated software, which is then used to create even better hardware, and so on, and we also are able to make better chess algorithms. Bottom line: both are needed.

I thought Moore's Law said computing speed doubled every 18 months...

So there should be a black pawn on a4?

@@Dhrazor Yeah, which stops stockfish's plan in this video.

nelson apology video incoming

yeap

Oh, thats silly, so the actual thing that was wrong was that one book (if thats the case, which probably is)

Yes it is

Yep, Nelson messed up

@@ElSantoDeMostoles "KZfaqrs are ruining chess" 😅

The thing is that even in the original puzzle Stockfish finds a way to defend itself for 11 more moves than in the "solution" Instead of Bf7 it plays h5

@@ElSantoDeMostoles but in the page show have the line h5 too. Is longer safe but was not the main line of the puzzle

@Samuel Laufer the pawn is black

We are adding pieces to black to get white to win. Really funny 🤣.

@@tapiolouhi9047 The actual puzzle had a Black pawn on a4. Nelson forgot to put the pawn on a4 when showing the puzzle. I have already looked it up.

@@tapiolouhi9047 That's not even rare in puzzles. I believe there is even a genre that is kind of the opposite, where white has to get rid of a white piece (while leaving everything else the same) in some complicated way in order to succeed.

@@tapiolouhi9047 idk ive looked at my own pieces like "sweet Buddha i wish i could stab my own pawn"

That would make the original puzzle flawless again...

The pawn would have to be on a3.

No, a white pawn would have to be on a3, a black pawn could be on a4.

@@johnkirby3?? There doesn't have to be any white pawn on the a file

⁠@@64MilestotheGallonyeah, nelson did a lil mistake and didn’t put the pawn in the a file

Yeah, that is a nice, simple fix to this puzzle.

so the youtuber wasted our time?

@@fs.jahahajjako8826 He made a mistake. It happens

@@fs.jahahajjako8826 It is a nice puzzle, and he shows the lines. I don't think it was a waste of time to watch this. The correction suggested above helps make the lines shown work properly, as imagined by the designer.

@@fs.jahahajjako8826 It was a mistake. There was actually a pawn on a4.

How he ruined (a) chess (study) hahahahah

Me too, i play on lichess (criticalcess123)

Lol same it seemed pretty obvious and as the video wen ton I accepted it as wrong only for stockfish to come back and say it was the right move.

You would just take the Queen with your own new Queen next move with checkmate, as it's still under attack by your bishop and only defended by blacks King.

Same

Black needs to move the pawn to H5 otherwise it would still be checkmate in 2 by white underpromoting to Knight. This does prevents checkmate for a while, but stockfish still says that it will be eventually checkmate by white since black still allows white to promote to Queen with easy access to checking the opposing King, while black doesn't.

If you try h5 instead of Bf7 for Black, white goes f7+ and when Black moves white plays f8 = Q which looks very dangerous for Black

@@marvinabt4964 What is the queen under an attack from? Where is the threat to c6?

I saw this too

the line keeps going from there, because blacks pawn D4 comes with check, and white will never have time to pick up the pawn with the bishop. I was about to comment the same thing, but then i found the check.

Yeah, doesn't work because Pawn to D4 is check by the black queen, you'll never get a chance to check the opponents king again.

I haven't seen this problem with a full citation but could it be that it was first published with no bPa4, then someone found that ...Qa4 refutes, then Evreinov added bPa4 and the problem was later published with this correction? It often happens that a problem is published which is a correction of a problem published earlier.

@@rosiefay7283 At very least in the page the KZfaqr show have Bpa4, and explain the line h5

i aint reading allat

a4

a3, a2 and a4 are all work

And if black plays 1........ Qd6 (preventing the bishop from taking the pawn when it moves down), then 2. Rg4 check Pd4 3. Pxg8 (promote to Q or R) mate

Nope, stockfish doesn't use the repository of seen possibilities but basically tries every possibility and checks the success rate

You come to correct a sentiment? Don't bother

Maybe the analogy was there just for the hell of it

It's like the idiotic axiomatic ponderous statement Morpheus makes about the Matrix....no body can tell you what the Matrix is....

@@burtonaka... you write like a 12 year old kid. and you have no idea of how stockfish actually works

Nah, instead of f8=Q on third move you'd play f8=N++

@@last-chance8476 Aside from the emotional damage you deal from promoting to a Knight with check, this would be a game-losing blunder.

@@isaakvandaalen3899 it's not check, it's check mate going by your previous moves.

@@last-chance8476 Like I said, I checked stockfish and this is the top line. There is no faster checkmate assuming Black defends properly. Perhaps you're referring to a different position.

Chess puzzles uses to be so scuff, stockfish really helps remove bias and nonsense from them and not leave intelligent people scratching their heads for hours.

Yeah that’s what the original puzzle is in this video he used a version that printed the puzzle wrong

We are using the version he is using so we do not have a black pawn at a4. Now then, based on what you're saying I would go Bxd4. Now you're getting mated on next move so your best idea would be Qa4 attacking the bishop. f6 to f7 discovered attack check, you are forced to Qxd4. Rxd4. Now you're most likely gonna go Bxf7 and so e6xf7. Kg7, Rf4 protecting the pawn that is about to promote. Kg6 or h6 doesn't matter because you will get ladder mated by rook and queen. In case you decide after Bxd4 to move the bishop to f7 you get taken and your king cannot escape, meaning you have to Qxf6 check, which simply leads to you being taken by the bishop and getting mated. Unless I missed some other legal move (or made any mistakes, I am currently half asleep staring into my phone) that does anything in these situations I see it as quite hopeless.

Yes the end game would go differently because you've just set yourself to be very quickly check mated after the bishop takes your pawn...

I agree. Blacks only move that doesn't get mate in 1 is to move the h7 pawn

In the original there was a black pawn on a4

As you may have noticed (if not, read the comments), the original puzzle had a black pawn on a4. The reason why Stockfish could win the position is that it's not the position from the puzzle.

1.f7 Bxf7 2.Rg4+?? loses to the discovered check 2...d4+.

I missed 2. d4 is check.

d4 is a discovered check on the white king and blocks the bishop. In the long run, that variation is a win for black.

d4 is a discovered check on the white king, and blocks the white bishop. In the long run, the variation is a win for black.

'Thats why the reply cant be black pawn to d4' Yes, it can, as it is a discovered check against the white king, and gives white to escape through Kg7.

What if you don’t take the bishop with our pawn???

9:04😂

Drawish doesn't equal boring, and people exaggerate the extent to which matches end in a draw. Most matches, percentage-wise, don't actually end with a draw. Yes, draws occur way more often now than they used to in the past, but that makes the game more interesting, not less. People are just looking for beauty in the game in the wrong places, because they don't understand what makes this game so amazing.

i mean that's the problem with chess as a whole. U know if it wasnt for stockfish, humans would found openings/midgames after years of research and we would end up in the same position

@@benismann Exactly. Humans have already solved other games before too without computers. This isn't a problem with computers. That's just the nature of games. Ultimately, all board games boild down to just extremely complicated logic exercises that can be solved. Once you solve them, there's that. And ultimately, computers are just another tool for studying logic. There isn't anything particular special about them beyond their calculation capabilities. If Stockfish is a problem, then books are a problem too, by the same token.