I just stumbled across this endgame : https://www.365chess.com/game.php?back=1&gid=134885&m=24
Basically, Black has only a Queen, White has Queen and Rook. Black resigns.
But here comes the tricky part:
If I put the game in a computer (here Stockfish 15), it does not find the winning ending game for White, even after a depth 70+ analysis. (I used stockfish-mac , https://github.com/daylen/stockfish-mac/wiki/User-Guide/). Black maintains perpetual check.
Though I'm not an expert of chess endgames, it does not seem to me that this position is documented as a theoretical draw. And this was an actual resignation from chess Grand Master and International Master. I suppose they knew what they were doing, even if Stockfish nor I can't find the winning position.
So basically I assume the game was losing for Black but Stockfish can't prove it.
I don't know what to do with this information.
a) Is it a Stockfish limitation? Should the program be completed by an endgame database, as seems to be hinted on the software help page (see syzygy) ?
b) But then, does this mean that without an endgame database, Stockfish 15 is faulty ? These bases are TeraBytes, which makes them pretty unusable for most people
c) One might argue that I've come across a very specific case, but is it really ? If Stockfish can't handle this basic situation, can it be trusted for other cases ? After all, many game evaluations rely ultimately on endgame evaluation.
d) By the way, the 50 move draw rule which is a 100 depth Stockfish analysis seems out-of-reach for Stockfish in reasonable time on a normal computer
e) Maybe Stockfish is right, this game was a draw, but then why did the chess masters decide it was not, and why is this not a theoretical draw documented (I couldn't find anything on google after a short search)
f) If Stockfish is right, that means that 365chess.com includes deceiving results, which is disappointing to me as I use it to check after strength of openings
Any expert insight about this would be appreciated.