Body: <p>Yeah, yeah, duplicate...
  <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/8933/are-there-positions-which-cannot-be-properly-analyzed-by-any-computer">Dupe A</a>
  <a href="https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/23837/solvable-studies-that-computers-fail-to-crack">Dupe B</a>
  ...but the times they are a-changing. For example, I tried <a href="https://www.yacpdb.org/#search/ODg4ODg4ODgvSGVubmViZXJnZXIsIE1vcml6Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLzEvMS8xLzA=/1" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this &quot;rambling rook&quot; piece</a> by Henneberger, Lichess Stockfish found a #31 on depth 93 or so. The famous Nxb6 trap (can't find it offhand) has long been avoided with deep enough depth (White instead gangs upon Pa5 and wins slowly). The <a href="https://www.chess.com/news/view/will-this-position-help-to-understand-human-consciousness-4298" rel="nofollow noreferrer">&quot;Penrose&quot;</a> now also gets an immediate yawning &quot;0.0&quot; by Stockfish.</p>
  <p>The question probably breaks down to which depth the super modern engines can reach, and if a problem can have its punchline beyond this horizon. (E.g., any &quot;Penrose&quot; style fortress problem will only need a depth of 100 halfmoves, when the 50 move rule kicks in, so this won't impress a modern engine.)</p>
  
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-09-02T12:50:26.913Z
Comments.Text: Yes. The starting position...
Comments.UserDisplayName: SmallChess
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-09-02T14:02:32.347Z
Comments.Text: If you already know its a "Duplicate" with Dupe A Dupe B , why post? 
  
  Short Answer is No... Alpha Zero works differently to other engines, so after an initial "viewing" of n amount of games. It will use its AI just to kick something off.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Dheebs
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-09-02T21:28:53.553Z
Comments.Text: @DavidBateman how does AlphaZero working differently detract from this question? AlphaZero style engines aren't even good at all tactics, for instance in a correspondence game I had a position where Stockfish would find a tactical solution but Leela would not. (but since Stockfish did find it, that doesn't really help here)
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-09-02T21:33:35.680Z
Comments.Text: In case you are interested though, I have not tried recently so maybe Leela can find it now, but not the last time I tried. White to play and win: r5r1/1np3bk/1p1p4/3P4/bpP2PPp/P3N2P/1q1BQ2K/4R1R1 w - - 0 33
Comments.UserDisplayName: koedem
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-09-02T22:57:32.950Z
Comments.Text: @SmallChess unsolvable for computers but solvable for humans?
Comments.UserDisplayName: BCLC
Comments.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Comments.CreationDate: 2021-09-03T00:41:54.043Z
Comments.Text: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/29716/positions-that-stump-engines This is also closely related.
Comments.UserDisplayName: Allure
Tags: <computer-chess>
Title: Are there still "unsolvable" positions for computers, post Alpha Zero?
ThreadText: # Are there still "unsolvable" positions for computers, post Alpha Zero?
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2021-09-02)
  
  Yeah, yeah, duplicate...
  [Dupe A](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/8933/are-there-positions-which-cannot-be-properly-analyzed-by-any-computer)
  [Dupe B](https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/23837/solvable-studies-that-computers-fail-to-crack)
  ...but the times they are a-changing. For example, I tried [this "rambling rook" piece](https://www.yacpdb.org/#search/ODg4ODg4ODgvSGVubmViZXJnZXIsIE1vcml6Ly8vLy8vLy8vLy8vLzEvMS8xLzA=/1) by Henneberger, Lichess Stockfish found a #31 on depth 93 or so. The famous Nxb6 trap (can't find it offhand) has long been avoided with deep enough depth (White instead gangs upon Pa5 and wins slowly). The ["Penrose"](https://www.chess.com/news/view/will-this-position-help-to-understand-human-consciousness-4298) now also gets an immediate yawning "0.0" by Stockfish.
  
  The question probably breaks down to which depth the super modern engines can reach, and if a problem can have its punchline beyond this horizon. (E.g., any "Penrose" style fortress problem will only need a depth of 100 halfmoves, when the 50 move rule kicks in, so this won't impress a modern engine.)
  
  **Tags:** computer-chess
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_1**: Yes. The starting position...  
  > **username_2**: If you already know its a "Duplicate" with Dupe A Dupe B , why post?   Short Answer is No... Alpha Zero works differently to other engines, so after an initial "viewing" of n amount of games. It will use its AI just to kick something off.  
  > **username_3**: @DavidBateman how does AlphaZero working differently detract from this question? AlphaZero style engines aren't even good at all tactics, for instance in a correspondence game I had a position where Stockfish would find a tactical solution but Leela would not. (but since Stockfish did find it, that doesn't really help here)  
  > **username_3**: In case you are interested though, I have not tried recently so maybe Leela can find it now, but not the last time I tried. White to play and win: r5r1/1np3bk/1p1p4/3P4/bpP2PPp/P3N2P/1q1BQ2K/4R1R1 w - - 0 33  
  > **username_4**: @username_1 unsolvable for computers but solvable for humans?  
  > **username_5**: https://chess.stackexchange.com/questions/29716/positions-that-stump-engines This is also closely related.  
  
  ---
  
  ## 0 answers
  
  