Answers.Body: <p>I'm assuming the depth 48 evaluation from today on the cloud is you :)</p>
  <p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/Ig5F8.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/Ig5F8.png" alt="" /></a></p>
  <p>I have a similar evaluation using Stockfish 15 at depth 29, so yes I think it's pretty clear 1.h5 (or 1.f4) are both objectively winning for White. Whether Karsten Muller missed it though I don't know. It depends if he said the position before 1.g5 was a draw. If he just gave the g5 line and showed how Black could have drawn against it, that might imply he thinks 1.g5 is a mistake and that White could have done better (but he just chose not to include 1.h5/1.f4 as an improvement). On the other hand, if he said the position before 1.g5 was a draw because of the 1...c5 resource, then he'd be wrong.</p>
  
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-01-04T19:31:18.967Z
Answers.Text: Who did analyze that in July 2022? The game happened in October, right? - Too bad OP did not link to the Müller source.
Answers.UserDisplayName: Pit
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-01-04T21:34:12.847Z
Answers.Text: @Pit Lichess says the date of the game was July 17
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Answers.ContentLicense: CC BY-SA 4.0
Answers.CreationDate: 2023-01-04T19:21:31.580Z
Answers.LastActivityDate: 2023-01-04T19:21:31.580Z
Answers.UserDisplayName: Inertial Ignorance
Body: <p>In a Game McShane vs Bluebaum, played at Deutschland Grand Prix 2022, the following endgame popped up.</p>
  <pre><code>[White &quot;McShane&quot;]
  [Black &quot;Bluebaum&quot;]
  [fen &quot;3r1k2/5p2/1pp2Np1/1b1pR3/1P1P2PP/4KP2/8/8 w - - 0 1&quot;]
  </code></pre>
  <p>Karsten Muller stated that after g5 c5 (!) Black draw. In the game , after g5 Bc4(?) White cruised to win. Mr Muller may be right on this , but Stockfish 14.1 NNUE uncover h5 (!) instead of g5 wins against any defense. h5 is evaluated at + 4.94 at depth = 47/79. Moreover , I did a second iteration starting from a critical point , Black to move at depth 41/43 and the evaluation was even slightly higher, precisely at + 5.68. It seems Karsten Muller missed this win in his analysis too.</p>
  <p>So is this position a win for White?</p>
  
Tags: <endgame>
Title: An endgame from Deutschland Grand Prix 2022 McShane vs Bluebaum
ThreadText: # An endgame from Deutschland Grand Prix 2022 McShane vs Bluebaum
  
  (Asked by: username_0 on 2023-01-04)
  
  In a Game McShane vs Bluebaum, played at Deutschland Grand Prix 2022, the following endgame popped up.
  
  ```
  [White "McShane"]
  [Black "Bluebaum"]
  [fen "3r1k2/5p2/1pp2Np1/1b1pR3/1P1P2PP/4KP2/8/8 w - - 0 1"]
  
  ```
  
  Karsten Muller stated that after g5 c5 (!) Black draw. In the game , after g5 Bc4(?) White cruised to win. Mr Muller may be right on this , but Stockfish 14.1 NNUE uncover h5 (!) instead of g5 wins against any defense. h5 is evaluated at + 4.94 at depth = 47/79. Moreover , I did a second iteration starting from a critical point , Black to move at depth 41/43 and the evaluation was even slightly higher, precisely at + 5.68. It seems Karsten Muller missed this win in his analysis too.
  
  So is this position a win for White?
  
  **Tags:** endgame
  
  
  ---
  
  ## 1 answers
  
  ### Answer by username_1 on 2023-01-04. Score: 1
  
  I'm assuming the depth 48 evaluation from today on the cloud is you :)
  
  [![](https://i.sstatic.net/Ig5F8.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/Ig5F8.png)
  
  I have a similar evaluation using Stockfish 15 at depth 29, so yes I think it's pretty clear 1.h5 (or 1.f4) are both objectively winning for White. Whether Karsten Muller missed it though I don't know. It depends if he said the position before 1.g5 was a draw. If he just gave the g5 line and showed how Black could have drawn against it, that might imply he thinks 1.g5 is a mistake and that White could have done better (but he just chose not to include 1.h5/1.f4 as an improvement). On the other hand, if he said the position before 1.g5 was a draw because of the 1...c5 resource, then he'd be wrong.
  
  > **Comments:**
  > **username_2**: Who did analyze that in July 2022? The game happened in October, right? - Too bad OP did not link to the Müller source.  
  > **username_1**: @username_2 Lichess says the date of the game was July 17  
  
  ---
  
  