I found this video so useful for improving your play against computers and it was recommended to me by an IM https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=cJ62DEi7
Don't click that link. It's a redirect link to joining his club disguised as a youtube video.
Lies
Really? Because this sure doesnt look like youtube.
p8q edited it
Why are you guys wasting your time with this??
This is like the guy who thought he could beat Magnus Carlsen by studying how an engine works and thinks... FOR A MONTH.
He received international attention and hung a piece on the 14th move, totally undefended.
The sad thing about this whole ordeal is that there are some people that truly believe that just by vigorously repeating and practicing at something, they can do it in a short time. I would be skeptical if you said you planned to do this in the next ten years, but depending on your age, you could of been the next world champion in ten years, but even if you were, you STILL probably couldn't defeat Stockfish.
This is impossible to do, I'm sorry to kill your vibe, but it's not possible.
Chalk it up to the internet, and being invisible.
Actually, since you said you let it think 40 seconds, post a screenshot after 40 seconds.
If I do that crazy request of posting 60 pictures, one for every single move, you will say I won because of stockfish configuration contempt, or you will say some other thing. For you it will never be enough.
The best idea, or the only solution, is someone call a journalist and we make a documentary of how I'm doing it. I invite the journalist to come at home, or we do a "big brother show" or something that shows I'm not carrying device. Etc.
Right now, the most practical way to check it out is analyzing the game. To run statistical cheating software I suppose.
But if someone has the resources for the journalist idea, I'm in. I will accept.
What's this "someone" should call a journalist???? Calling your bluff. You want credibility YOU call a journalist.
I'm sure Peter Doggers or Danny Rench would be all over this story about a 1300 player who makes 3500 hundred level moves, but only when his playing a computer. When he's playing a human for some reason he goes back to making sh1t moves. Like magic.
So why don't you quit posting here, and when you have the verified witnessed game all set up we can read about it in the chess.com news. In the meantime STFU.
I don't want credibility, because I don't have to prove myself, because I know the truth of what I'm doing at any moment.
Credibility is what has being asked by other people and as a response I suggested some solutions.
If someone doesn't believe me, he can do many things to prove if what I did is true, for example calling a journalist could be an idea. I don't know, I didn't think much about how to prove it. I thought just analyzing the match would be enough to prove it. But if some millionare is reading this, someone who doesn't know where to put his money, and he would like to know if all this is true, he can make a "big brother show" or documentary... or something. Because if he see it with his own eyes, you wouldn't believe him either. So, one solution could be a show where everybody can see it. Like Kasparov-Deep Blue or something like that.
Only because I'm not a famous person it doesn't mean this is untrue. If I were famous, like Nakamura for example, you wouldn't doubt about it and you wouldn't be asking for prove, you would just believe it.
There are the two matches. Take them, analyze them, run through them all statistical analysis you want. They are the only prove you have for now.
I don't want credibility, because I don't have to prove myself, because I know the truth of what I'm doing at any moment.
Credibility is what has being asked by other people and as a response I suggested some solutions.
If someone doesn't believe me, he can do many things to prove if what I did is true, for example calling a journalist could be an idea. I don't know, I didn't think much about how to prove it. I thought just analyzing the match would be enough to prove it. But if some millionare is reading this, someone who doesn't know where to put his money, and he would like to know if all this is true, he can make a "big brother show" or documentary... or something. Because if he see it with his own eyes, you wouldn't believe him either. So, one solution could be a show where everybody can see it. Like Kasparov-Deep Blue or something like that.
Only because I'm not a famous person it doesn't mean this is untrue. If I were famous, like Nakamura for example, you wouldn't doubt about it and you wouldn't be asking for prove, you would just believe it.
There are the two matches. Take them, analyze them, run through them all statistical analysis you want. They are the only prove you have for now.
And yet you are still losing to 1200 - 1300 players here...
Or even better, do it yourself: grab stockfish, grab your chessboard, and do it. Then, after 9 months, try to convince someone you did it. It's more difficult to show what you did, than doing it.
If I can do it, a low rated player, you can do it too with your high blitz rating. Just try.
But you know what's the problem? that you will never try to do what I did. That's the only reason I can do it and you don't. The same reason GMs can't do it.
I don't want credibility, because I don't have to prove myself, because I know the truth of what I'm doing at any moment.
Credibility is what has being asked by other people and as a response I suggested some solutions.
If someone doesn't believe me, he can do many things to prove if what I did is true, for example calling a journalist could be an idea. I don't know, I didn't think much about how to prove it. I thought just analyzing the match would be enough to prove it. But if some millionare is reading this, someone who doesn't know where to put his money, and he would like to know if all this is true, he can make a "big brother show" or documentary... or something. Because if he see it with his own eyes, you wouldn't believe him either. So, one solution could be a show where everybody can see it. Like Kasparov-Deep Blue or something like that.
Only because I'm not a famous person it doesn't mean this is untrue. If I were famous, like Nakamura for example, you wouldn't doubt about it and you wouldn't be asking for prove, you would just believe it.
There are the two matches. Take them, analyze them, run through them all statistical analysis you want. They are the only prove you have for now.
And yet you are still losing to 1200 - 1300 players here...
But my rating in chess.com doesn't mean anything.
I never play for a week to 1200 rated players in order to draw 9 months later. They are two different unrelated phenomena.
I don't put my whole mind into them like I do to stockfish. So much time-energy for every match against 1200 rated players would be exhausting, like having a job and not getting paid. Anyways I won against more than 2000 rated players a couple of times.
The methodology to follow (and also spiritual preparation) is what a newbie needs to beat stockfish. It has to be a newbie, not a professional, otherwise it wouldn't be such a big challenge.
Read post #176
If one day I win the game vs sf, and post it here, you will stone me to death, wash your hands and say to each other that it didn't happen.
Your beliefs system are your obstacle, you just don't want it to happen. And yet it happened.
I don't have such beliefs system, sometimes the impossible is possible and the possible can become impossible. Your mind makes all the difference. I have seen that many times. Thus, I got two draws. Next time It will be a win.
I figured it out. You are playing in a format that allows you to see the engine's recommendations. When I play that way, I never lose.
I figured it out. You are playing in a format that allows you to see the engine's recommendations. When I play that way, I never lose.
I'm not playing that format, I don't see any engine recommendation when playing.
I think you got confused by previous screenshots. Those screenshots are the posteriori analysis. After the match is over, I can see in the analysis what the engine actually thought or thinks about the position, but never while playing. That way it would be very easy to win.
In the posteriori analysis, when the match is over, I check what the machine thinks and what I moved. They are different moves. Sometimes it can be the same for obvious moves, but that's common coincidence we all get (in obvious things like eating a queen with a pawn, machine and human would agree).
I think that conventional, orthodox human chess cannot beat stockfish. You would have to approach chess differently than just the extrapolation of patterns and conventional wisdom and that requires a far greater eminence than (the already difficult) game normally does already.
That said, I do believe people can surpass engines, even with how quickly they are improving. I just don't think everyone can do it, just some of the brightest and most specialized / inclined.
Those thoughts are very interesting. But I desagree, because engines were programmed by humans, so they think like humans, they can't do anything different or superior.
I figured it out. You are playing in a format that allows you to see the engine's recommendations. When I play that way, I never lose.
I'm not playing that format, I don't see any engine recommendation when playing.
I think you got confused by previous screenshots. Those screenshots are the posteriori analysis. After the match is over, I can see in the analysis what the engine actually thought or thinks about the position, but never while playing. That way it would be very easy to win.
If your rating is accurate I suspect you will find it very difficult to beat the engine even if you knew what it was thinking, provided the position for you was balanced or worse.
You can't judge this human vs stockfish matches by my rating. The conditions are completely different. I don't play 1200 rated players for nine months just to get a draw. See previous posts: my rating-comparison posts already reapeated three times.
And you don't need a big large GM rating to beat stockfish. You just need the will to do it.
I don't have any idea about what the engine is thinking and I don't need to know it. I calculate 25 moves deep in almost every single possibility, taking into account the strategic evaluation of the position in every of those moves. That's the reason my matches lasts for weeks.
I think you got confused by previous screenshots.
Nope.
More likely:
I think that you cannot beat the machine in a fair battle. If you say you can, you cannot be trusted.
I think you got confused by previous screenshots.
Nope.
More likely:
I think that you cannot beat the machine in a fair battle. If you say you can, you cannot be trusted.
I said in many previous posts that I'm thinking for hours (sometimes for three days) just one move, when stockfish thinks his move in just minutes.
You can call it a "not fair battle", that's the reason I said machines are faster, but not better.
In the end we both think the same moves, but stockfish spends minutes and I spend hours and hours. One position took me more than three days to think the next move.
But quality is different than speed. At the end quality is the same.
I've heard from a friend that Leela is winning vs stockfish. And I also heard that for Leela to get its hightest strength it must be run on special hardware designed for it. Is it true?
I hope stockfish wins, because otherwise I have to download Leela and I don't have that special hardware.
I think you got confused by previous screenshots.
Nope.
More likely:
I think that you cannot beat the machine in a fair battle. If you say you can, you cannot be trusted.
I said in many previous posts that I'm thinking for hours (sometimes for three days) just one move, when stockfish thinks his move in just minutes.
You can call it a "not fair battle", that's the reason I said machines are faster, but not better.
In the end we both think the same moves, but stockfish spends minutes and I spend hours and hours. One position took me more than three days to think the next move.
But quality is different than speed. At the end quality is the same.
I don't buy that claim in the slightest. I've spent that sort of time playing correspondence chess against humans. Stockfish is another matter.
There is no way that three days of thinking would prove productive for a player of your caliber. If you could find moves that are good enough in such a battle, then you would easily exceed 1800 rating while playing drunk. With the skill you exhibit in your games on this site, more time thinking would likely produce worse play.
I found this video so useful for improving your play against computers and it was recommended to me by an IM https://www. youtube.com/watch?v=cJ62DEi7
Don't click that link. It's a redirect link to joining his club disguised as a youtube video.
Lies