So, if an engine states an opening such as the Kings Indian is unsound, is that accurate if both sides play "perfectly"
Can an engine determine an opening is sound from the perspective of a "perfect player" or do they lack the intuition and long term planning to do so? I am asking purely out of curiosity.
Properly means to be perfect or what level?
Assuming theoretical perfect chess is 4500 rating, engines can play quality of 3500 rating. Do you think anything else is better quality than this?
But some human analyse single position for several weeks and make books. Those books will be stronger than you using engines for a few seconds though.
To answer the title's question, they usually do not evaluate very well in the opening positions.
Show me a single opening where you can play better than an engine?
Specialists on Talkchess forum tend to say that in order to get semi-trustable opening analysis with Stockfish, you would need 33-35 plies, and then some database allowing you to backtrack the score.
So, if an engine states an opening such as the Kings Indian is unsound, is that accurate if both sides play "perfectly"
The short and long answer is often no.
You will see it a lot here...people using some relatively cheap personal computer and then saying this or that is Stockfish or Leela. Yet all that is ignorance. Typically once processed by a more powerful computer, these cheapo evaluations are thrown out the window.
There is no such thing as perfect play. The engines will often disagree with what move is to be played.If people think computer chess creates a linear utopia, they will be heavily disappointed. With some updates, the openings are completely changed.
Specialists on Talkchess forum tend to say that in order to get semi-trustable opening analysis with Stockfish, you would need 33-35 plies, and then some database allowing you to backtrack the score.
Do you mean Kai Lasko from talkchess?
Number of nodes is better indicator than depth for stockfish.
Some tests show that 200 million nodes search per position is very decent ( around 40 seconds for most desktop). One billion position search per move is very strong ( around 3 mins per move).
If you have Leela, Leela is much better than Stockfish, and one million nodes per position for Leela is too good to be seen in term of today quality of chess.
How about AlphaZero? Many people believe that AlphaZero has a rating between 3500-4000. Does anyone think that AlphaZero has the long-term planning necessary to evaluate opening positions correctly? There are many positions which engines dislike that are considered sound by humans and vice versa.
How about AlphaZero? Many people believe that AlphaZero has a rating between 3500-4000. Does anyone think that AlphaZero has the long-term planning necessary to evaluate opening positions correctly? There are many positions which engines dislike that are considered sound by humans and vice versa.
Alphazero only likes c4 as an opening. QGD against d4 and e5 against e4
How about AlphaZero? Many people believe that AlphaZero has a rating between 3500-4000. Does anyone think that AlphaZero has the long-term planning necessary to evaluate opening positions correctly? There are many positions which engines dislike that are considered sound by humans and vice versa.
Find me one person that plays anyone rated between 3500-4000?
It is an estimate like almost all engine ratings.
alphazero also thinks grunfeld (and by extension kings indian) and sicilian are rubbish, very popular in the current top level
See how Carlesen use engines for his preparation.
"
How important are computer programs for your preparation?
Computers are very important for sure. All the analysis I've done has been with the help of the computers. You constantly need them."
https://www.dw.com/en/world-chess-champion-magnus-carlsen-the-computer-never-has-been-an-opponent/a-19186058-0
I was just asking whether engines have the ability to determine an opening's soundness. Regardless of what Stockfish says, I will use the Winawer Poisoned Pawn in my tournament next week. I just wanted to see this site's opinion on Stockfish's opening evaluations.
Can an engine determine an opening is sound from the perspective of a "perfect player" or do they lack the intuition and long term planning to do so? I am asking purely out of curiosity.
I don't think it matters much because your opponent can't play like Stockfish.
Do you mean Kai Lasko from talkchess?
Either him or Dann Corbit - or some other people running 40-ply analyses whenever there is a question of opening correctness.
There's a line in the Traxler where a lot of people on this forum could play better than Stockfish. We were debating it here a few years back. Stockfish says White is winning until it sees black has a draw by repetition, then its evaluation goes to 0. Stockfish will take that draw but people who read that forum would castle Queenside as black. Eventually Stockfish sees black is better but it takes it a very long time. There's a line in the KG that at least five or six years back Fritz was similar, idk about now. Of course engines will never play into either of these lines if you don't make it do it because their opening books have been programmed by human players who have studied and know they are bad.
There's a line in the Traxler where a lot of people on this forum could play better than Stockfish. We were debating it here a few years back. Stockfish says White is winning until it sees black has a draw by repetition, then its evaluation goes to 0. Stockfish will take that draw but people who read that forum would castle Queenside as black. Eventually Stockfish sees black is better but it takes it a very long time. There's a line in the KG that at least five or six years back Fritz was similar, idk about now. Of course engines will never play into either of these lines if you don't make it do it because their opening books have been programmed by human players who have studied and know they are bad.
Which version of Stockfish you use and how many nodes SF searched for that position?
Do you mean analysis by this crappy chess.com server stockfish? In fact if SF search only a few hundreds nodes per move, her strength will be like 1200, but a few hundred million nodes per move will make her like 3500.
Show me the position, and I will analyse in 3 mins and show you how strong stockfish is. ( Let me see whether SF really played bad)
Openings that the computer will never play are not played because they suck. They can give you an advantage or a great position, but the computer wants the biggest advantage it can get and the best position it can get.
Can an engine determine an opening is sound from the perspective of a "perfect player" or do they lack the intuition and long term planning to do so? I am asking purely out of curiosity.