in this postoin it thinks black is up by 1.4 points but theres no way to get though unless white is dumb and takes a pawn
dumb stockfish
Sort:
Yeah, my analysis shows -1.3 (black’s favor), but it is a draw.
#2 is correct it’s draw only but if you sacrifice your black squared white bishop it won’t be draw
Yea actually it is -1.3 in my analysis
Wait when I click to analysis it says-1.4
I meant again
Dumb
If you have it at a stronger depth, it says that it is a draw
Zol321 wrote:
If you have it at a stronger depth, it says that it is a draw
thats true but its sad that a human could see that 10 times faster
It's a well-known fact that there are some positions that the engine can't analyze fully because of how closed the position is, like this one
Or this one
(Although the engine says that white is +1.5, it's better for black in the long run.)
Chess.com made an article about this too - https://www.chess.com/article/view/10-positions-chess-engines-just-dont-understand
Indeed
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/110211070747?tab=review&move=160
https://www.chess.com/analysis/game/live/110309475523?tab=review&move=28
i just want a place to store some links so i put it in my dumb forum
At least stockfish is smarter then you King_DevZev
dallasprogamer wrote:
At least stockfish is smarter then you King_DevZev
At least King_DevZev is 160 rating points higher than you in rapid
lemma challenge them then but thats his chess.com rating what about his uscf rating
dallasprogamer wrote:
At least stockfish is smarter then you King_DevZev
i peronaly think that if the computer was set to the same speed as a human brain i would win .computers will never be "smarter "then humans