Chess riddle

Something to ponder over the morning coffee, both the riddle and the things they want to prove.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2017/03/14/can-solve-chess-problem-holds-key-human-consciousness/

oh man perfect timing, I was just about to make myself a coffee... very interesting, thanks!

Nice puzzle - just tried it, and yes, it's very easy to draw actually. What I find funny is that the eval is -28 or something ridiculous, but after I played the game and analysed it on here, after depth 75 or so, the -28s all become 0. Maybe I'm missing something, but computers (at least mine) DO realise this is a draw. Completely baffled of this is actually a forced win for black though.... is it?

@mCoombes314
“But, for a computer, the puzzle requires an enormous number of calculations, far too many for even today’s supercomputers.”

Sounds like you have the most advanced supercomputer in the world?

@jimj12 did you see what happens when you play vs Stockfish on here? (the PNACL analysis board one, not level 8). It sees a draw fairly quickly. Didn't know Lichess could afford to run supercomputers but hey, good to know. Or am I misunderstanding something?

@mCoombes314
I think that analysis board engine one is run locally on your computer

Mine has been stuck on depth 56 for ages at -28 eval

Edit: After actually playing out a 50-move draw, the local analysis very easily reaches max depth and sees the draw instantly. I'm certain that showing it the moves is cheating

I still wonder if their claims hold true from scratch on an actual supercomputer though

Mine switched to 0 at around depth 70 or so. HOWEVER, when I played using "practice with the computer" I only let it run to depth 50 or so per move, then played my move. All -28 evals UNTIL I went back to re-check. Then, each move changed to 0 the instant I viewed it. Strange behaviour or just clever computing?

Hum..... this could be the source of the problem. “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.... from http://mashable.com/2017/03/14/solve-this-chess-puzzle/#bHEhjUAMmiqt

which refers to the same puzzle.

A) Fritz, not Stockfish or Komodo?
B) 20 moves ahead? That's not enough for this position surely, hence why the eval remains at -x until a large depth is reached.

I'm even more confused now.... isn't this just another example of the horizon effect, or at least a demonstration that the current method of programming chess engines doesn't account for these few (very odd) positions?

"Chess computers fail at Penrose’s chess puzzle because they have a database of end-games to choose from. This board is not, Tagg and Penrose believe, in the computer’s playbook. “We’re forcing the chess machine to actually think about the position, as opposed to cheat and just regurgitate a pre-programmed answer, which computers are perfect at,” said Tagg."

Sounds like they are referring to endgame tablebases. Of course the computer can't do that, because a tablebase including this position doesn't exist. Why should it? 3 bishops is not really a common enough thing in games for this to exist. I've only seen extra bishops in compositions. Yes, there are legal games which can lead to this sort of position, but not practical ones.