Answers.Body: <p>I note that the source for the Wikipedia articles is a book written in 1978. Consulting Stockfish was not an option back then.</p>
  <p>But to defend the &quot;?&quot;: The fork after Qxh4 is trivial, and the resulting position is obviously lost (although the mate is some distance away.) You would expect White to resign immediately rather than play Qxh4 if both players are professional-level. Forcing your opponent to find moves in the more complicated position after Bh1 is probably the better practical option even if it loses faster with best play.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-16T03:12:16.233Z
Answers.Text: I disagree, and so does Wikipedia. "Use of these annotation symbols is subjective, as different annotators use the same symbols differently."
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-20T14:57:39.870Z
Answers.Text: Yes, it's a broad statement. Because it applies broadly. You can feel free to write your own answer if you think mine is wrong; I'm not going to be editing this one to take your opinion into account, as I disagree with it.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-21T21:05:20.387Z
Answers.Text: They might if one has better handling which allows you to *actually* drive faster around curves, regardless of theoretical top speeds.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-28T17:00:16.270Z
Answers.Text: ?! isn't always given to moves that are objectively worse than the best move. I've seen it in many endgame books to refer to moves that still hold a draw but make the defense more complicated than an alternative, simpler move.
Answers.UserDisplayName: David
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-29T20:33:40.113Z
Answers.Text: @NilsLindemann "We could let thousands of people play the position after them, and we would see that those positions score worse" - That is something you *could* do, but outside perhaps openings nobody actually *does* that before annotating. Especially in the pre-computer era, it's the subjective opinion of the annotator. Especially with `?!` which many authors used to indicate something interesting about a dubious move, and not simply that it was inaccurate.
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2024-10-13T19:39:29.077Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2024-10-13T19:39:29.077Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: D M
Body: <p>Wikipedia's <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immortal_Zugzwang_Game#Other_contenders_for_the_title" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Immortal Zugzwang Game: Other contenders for the title</a>  and <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang#Podgaets_vs._Dvoretsky" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Zugzwang: Podgaets vs. Dvoretsky</a> mention <a href="https://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1581229" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this game</a>:</p>
  <pre><code>[FEN &quot;&quot;]
  [StartPly &quot;54&quot;]
  [Event &quot;URS-ch First League&quot;]
  [Site &quot;Odessa URS&quot;]
  [Date &quot;1974.10.??&quot;]
  [EventDate &quot;1974.10.04&quot;]
  [Round &quot;10&quot;]
  [Result &quot;0-1&quot;]
  [White &quot;Mikhail Podgaets&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Mark Izrailovich Dvoretsky&quot;]
  [ECO &quot;A44&quot;]
  [WhiteElo &quot;?&quot;]
  [BlackElo &quot;?&quot;]
  [PlyCount &quot;60&quot;]
  
  1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3
  7. Qxf3 Bg5 8. Bb5+ Kf8 9. Bxg5 Qxg5 10. h4 Qe7 11. Be2 h5
  12. a4 g6 13. g3 Kg7 14. O-O Nh6 15. Nd1 Nd7 16. Ne3 Rhf8
  17. a5 f5 18. exf5 e4 19. Qg2 Nxf5 20. Nxf5+ Rxf5 21. a6 b6
  22. g4 hxg4 23. Bxg4 Rf4 24. Rae1 Ne5 25. Rxe4 Rxe4 26. Qxe4
  Qxh4 27. Bf3 Rf8 28. Bh1 (28. Qxh4 Nxf3+ 29. Kh1 Nxh4) 28... Ng4 29. Qg2 Rf3 30. c4 Kh6 0-1
  </code></pre>
  <p>Specifically, I'm concerned with this statement from the Wikipedia pages:</p>
  <blockquote>
  <p><strong>28. Bh1</strong> 28.Qxh4? Nxf3+ and 29...Nxh4 leaves Black a piece ahead.</p>
  </blockquote>
  <p>That makes it sound like Qxh4 would have been a worse move than Bh1 was. But after letting Stockfish think about the position for a few minutes, it says that Qxh4 is best (granted, the evaluation is still -7.2), and it very quickly finds a mate-in-21 after Bh1.</p>
  <p>Am I interpreting that statement correctly? If so, is it wrong, or is Stockfish wrong?</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2024-10-28T16:58:16.167Z
Comments.Text: White is dead lost so whether the evaluation is -5, -17 or -#15 doesn't really change much. White should try to make the move that leads to a more complicated continuation, not necessarily to an objectively better one (mainly because there's no such thing: every move will lose one way or another)
Comments.UserDisplayName: David
Tags: <engines><analysis><evaluation><famous-games><zugzwang>
Title: Is the analysis of Podgaets–Dvoretsky, USSR 1974 on Wikipedia wrong, or is Stockfish missing something?
ThreadText: # Is the analysis of Podgaets–Dvoretsky, USSR 1974 on Wikipedia wrong, or is Stockfish missing something?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2024-10-13)
  
  Wikipedia's Immortal Zugzwang Game: Other contenders for the title  and Zugzwang: Podgaets vs. Dvoretsky mention this game:
  [FEN ""]
  [StartPly "54"]
  [Event "URS-ch First League"]
  [Site "Odessa URS"]
  [Date "1974.10.??"]
  [EventDate "1974.10.04"]
  [Round "10"]
  [Result "0-1"]
  [White "Mikhail Podgaets"]
  [Black "Mark Izrailovich Dvoretsky"]
  [ECO "A44"]
  [WhiteElo "?"]
  [BlackElo "?"]
  [PlyCount "60"]
  
  1. d4 c5 2. d5 e5 3. e4 d6 4. Nc3 Be7 5. Nf3 Bg4 6. h3 Bxf3
  7. Qxf3 Bg5 8. Bb5+ Kf8 9. Bxg5 Qxg5 10. h4 Qe7 11. Be2 h5
  12. a4 g6 13. g3 Kg7 14. O-O Nh6 15. Nd1 Nd7 16. Ne3 Rhf8
  17. a5 f5 18. exf5 e4 19. Qg2 Nxf5 20. Nxf5+ Rxf5 21. a6 b6
  22. g4 hxg4 23. Bxg4 Rf4 24. Rae1 Ne5 25. Rxe4 Rxe4 26. Qxe4
  Qxh4 27. Bf3 Rf8 28. Bh1 (28. Qxh4 Nxf3+ 29. Kh1 Nxh4) 28... Ng4 29. Qg2 Rf3 30. c4 Kh6 0-1
  
  Specifically, I'm concerned with this statement from the Wikipedia pages:
  
  28. Bh1 28.Qxh4? Nxf3+ and 29...Nxh4 leaves Black a piece ahead.
  
  That makes it sound like Qxh4 would have been a worse move than Bh1 was. But after letting Stockfish think about the position for a few minutes, it says that Qxh4 is best (granted, the evaluation is still -7.2), and it very quickly finds a mate-in-21 after Bh1.
  Am I interpreting that statement correctly? If so, is it wrong, or is Stockfish wrong?
  
  **Tags:** engines, analysis, evaluation, famous-games, zugzwang
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: White is dead lost so whether the evaluation is -5, -17 or -#15 doesn't really change much. White should try to make the move that leads to a more complicated continuation, not necessarily to an objectively better one (mainly because there's no such thing: every move will lose one way or another)  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_2 on 2024-10-13. Score: 10 | Accepted answer
  
  I note that the source for the Wikipedia articles is a book written in 1978. Consulting Stockfish was not an option back then.
  
  But to defend the "?": The fork after Qxh4 is trivial, and the resulting position is obviously lost (although the mate is some distance away.) You would expect White to resign immediately rather than play Qxh4 if both players are professional-level. Forcing your opponent to find moves in the more complicated position after Bh1 is probably the better practical option even if it loses faster with best play.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: I disagree, and so does Wikipedia. "Use of these annotation symbols is subjective, as different annotators use the same symbols differently."  
  > **username_2**: Yes, it's a broad statement. Because it applies broadly. You can feel free to write your own answer if you think mine is wrong; I'm not going to be editing this one to take your opinion into account, as I disagree with it.  
  > **username_2**: They might if one has better handling which allows you to *actually* drive faster around curves, regardless of theoretical top speeds.  
  > **username_1**: ?! isn't always given to moves that are objectively worse than the best move. I've seen it in many endgame books to refer to moves that still hold a draw but make the defense more complicated than an alternative, simpler move.  
  > **username_2**: @NilsLindemann "We could let thousands of people play the position after them, and we would see that those positions score worse" - That is something you *could* do, but outside perhaps openings nobody actually *does* that before annotating. Especially in the pre-computer era, it's the subjective opinion of the annotator. Especially with `?!` which many authors used to indicate something interesting about a dubious move, and not simply that it was inaccurate.  
  
  ---
  
  