p8q wrote:
It would have being interesting to have a technical conversation with someone who is not immature and unrespectful.
I analyzed an old game played by my smartphone vs my computer (intel i7 2.8GHz 8GB). I played to check if my smartphone was strong enough to take the challenge against it. After running several games I was convinced it was strong enough.
Here is one of the games. I had to resign manually because they engaged in a hundreds of moves draw:
You are lying, assuming that you run stockfish for 30 seconds a move(in your original post you claimed that you ran stockfish for 40 seconds), that would take you more than 100 minutes to have them play that game.
After running the analysis it's plain clear that an engine doesn't always choose the same move as the best move. Every single move not blue colored is a disagreement:
It means that for the same position an engine sometimes will choose one move as the best one, sometimes the same engine will choose another move (even when that engine is run in the same machine at same configuration). Also if the position is very clear it will always choose the same move.
As a consequence, claiming that stockfish is not stockfish only because it chose another of the candidates moves, being this one as strong as the best move in the analysis, is complete nonsense.
The only way to know if stockfish was stockfish is checking that there were not inaccuracies, and also checking the strength played. The strength played was 3500 rating points.
If there is another engine in the world able to play 3500 rating strength and not being stockfish, then it wouldn't matter because this challenge would be exactly the same challenge: trying to beat on my smartphone the strongest chess software.
I know almost nobody cares about this forum, I know it from the beginning, 9 months ago. I like the respectfull silence that now it got, the same silence it always gets for months until next match is posted.