Studies that have been cooked by computers A study is unlike a regular chess problem. Instead of "mate in 3" (for instance), a study's instructions are something like "White to draw" (for instance). What this means is to find a line of play after which White reaches a position that is known to be a draw. But there is a problem with this notion because computers have shown us that many situations that were "known to be a draw" aren't really (same for theoretical wins).


  Are there any famous studies that have been cooked (solution is not valid) due to a computer showing that the final position did not satisfy the conditions of the study?


(By famous I mean either a classic that appears in many books or a study that won prizes in problem tournaments.)
I don't know how famous it is, but here is a study shown to be incorrect by computers:
 [Title &quot;J. van Reek, 1987. White to play and draw.&quot;]
 [FEN &quot;8/5n2/5N2/3K4/8/3p4/Rn6/1k6 w - - 0 1&quot;]

 1. Ra3 d2 2. Rd3 Nxd3 3. Ne4 d1=N! 4. Ke6 Nd8+ (4... Nh6!) 5. Kd7 Nb7 6. Kc6 Na5+ 7. Kb5 Nb3 8. Nc3+ Nxc3+ 9. Kc4 Kc2 1/2-1/2

The intended solution is given in the diagram. It has a very nice stalemate finish.
Unfortunately black can play 4... Nh6!, and according to the tablebases there is a win for black in 39 moves.
So three knights can win against one. Having to play this ending would give me nightmares!