Yeah, you are gonna pretend SF took 5 seconds in a move on a 10 sec game? Get real, besides, that's severely handicapped SF (1700 rating is literally half of what fully fledged SF has).
If you click on the user name you will see that it is in fact stockfish.
Beat stockfish at level 20 with 5 minutes or more time control, then brag.
Ok boomer
@Asparagusic_acids
According to chess.com analysis on that game you just posted, you played with an accuracy of 99.4% and stockfish with an accuracy of 98.9%. It means your moves were closer to the ones suggested by stockfish than the moves stockfish itself made.
Chess.com updated to stockfish 11, hence the moves in that game are not 100% accurate because you played stockfish 10.
I expected that in order to beat stockfish one must play moves that stockfish doesn't expect, so the winner must have played less accurate moves than stockfish according to stockfish analysis. Such as winning lines with unexpected sacrifices, because the human player found lines that stockfish algorithm is unable to forsee due the way it's programmed. Something like beating a machine through unexpected creativity.
Once my girlfriend beat stockfish (at level 7) through lines of unexpected sacrifices. That was a beautiful match. The posterior analysis using stockfish engine indicated she played less accurate moves than stockfish and she won.
This thoughts bring the question if you used stockfish engine to make your moves (cheating)? Don't worry, if you confess we will not report you and we will take it as a funny joke
If you didn't cheat, can you explain your strategy and why you won? How were the time controls? how deep you thought your lines of moves to be able to outmaneuver stockfish... and why your moves are so close to the ones suggested by stockfish? Can you comment your key moves and the strategic principles behind them that made stockfish lose?
This also arises the question how to detect cheating by analysing a game a posteriori.
BTW to beat stockfish I used a modified(I made the modification) version of Rodent ll with an elo of about 2700 fide.
Hi people,
I'm trying to beat Stockfish 10 in my smartphone, using Droidfish app.
I'm doing it for the sake of human kind, since lately GM don't play serious official machine-human games to restore human honor.
I'm trying to prove that machines can be faster than humans in chess, but faster doesn't mean better. But the problem is that I'm an average chess player, maybe we could say a newbie. So, in order to success I'm using mental brute force (no cheating).
The Method:
What I'm doing before each move is to think ahead at least 5 posible lines, visualizing 10 moves (20 half-moves) deep in each variation. If stockfish in my phone can calculate that deep, I have posibilities.
The Rules:
The rules are that I don't touch the pieces while I'm thinking, and I can't look or analyze using an engine or any other sources. Everything has to come from my own sweat.
But, since I want to prove that machines are faster, but not better, I'm allowed to leave the match and go to work, or go for a walk, etc. and keep on later or the next day. I'm allowed to have a life beyond the board.
This rule is obvious, but I'll mention it: I can't take back a move. If I make a mistake I'll keep on with it.
Hardware:
My smartphone is an LG X power2 (M320N). It is calculating 275,000 nodes per second.
My body is just a normal body, powerd by food and air, and some cold drink from time to time.
Time control:
In order to get quality moves from the machine, I'm allowing my smartphone to think for at least 40 seconds before each move: that's 11 million of positions.
For me, I usually take from 5 to 15 minutes to think the five or more variations, 20 moves deep each one, in middle game or opening.
Progress:
So far I have being able to beat stockfish at levels up to 36% (level 7). And I have being able to draw at levels up to 72% (level 14). So, now I'm trying to beat it at level 99.9% (level 20, hightest level) and I almost draw , so I can see there is a glimpse of possibility.
I think nobody before made this kind of experiment, thinking that way, with this time controls, etc... so I'll keep trying.
I'm posting the game in which I almost draw at level 20. I can post on request the rest that I mentioned, but I just didn't like the idea of filling the forum with games that are not so interesting.
------------------------------------
I would like to know your thoughts about this, if my smartphone is too much understrength and I should give it more time to think... if there is someone I didn't know that did this before... if you would like to do the same experiment, etc. All related stuff is wellcomed
You don't understand enough about chess to understand how hopeless your quest is.
Would you try to lift more by yourself than a forklift for the sake of "human honor?"
That's what you're trying to do vs chess computers. World Champions, who study chess hours every day for years can't beat the chess engines, but you're going to do it with little chess skill?
Better, just try to improve your play against humans, not machines that possess unfair advantages.
I stacked premoves, which was possible because stockfish spent too much time in the beginning.
I have to agree, you barely have a chance of winning. Just keep you pieces closed and don't let anything get undefended. Boom you have a chance of winning.
From my old account, here's one of my games. Of course, I don't play 10 sec games now.
https://www.chess.com/live/game/2531660877?username=gm_chess_player
Lol, SF's timer didn't even run out.
BTW to beat stockfish I used a modified(I made the modification) version of Rodent ll with an elo of about 2700 fide.
Thank you for the clarification. When you said you beat stockfish I thought you were not aided by an engine. You were aided by Rodent ll.
That's what Kasparov used to say: to ally with the machine, instead of trying to beat them. I like that philosophy, but I think we can still beat them without machine aid. Thank you for your post 
BTW to beat stockfish I used a modified(I made the modification) version of Rodent ll with an elo of about 2700 fide.
Thank you for the clarification. When you said you beat stockfish I thought you were not aided by an engine. You were aided by Rodent ll.
That's what Kasparov used to say: to ally with the machine, instead of trying to beat them. I like that philosophy, but I think we can still beat them without machine aid. Thank you for your post
I modified Rodent ll to play attacking chess which gave it a horrible evaluation, meaning that it needed to be at least at depth 20 to have a small chance of winning. If it wasn't for the "deep" depth Rodentll would be playing unsound sacrifices.
You don't understand enough about chess to understand how hopeless your quest is.
Would you try to lift more by yourself than a forklift for the sake of "human honor?"
That's what you're trying to do vs chess computers. World Champions, who study chess hours every day for years can't beat the chess engines, but you're going to do it with little chess skill?
Better, just try to improve your play against humans, not machines that possess unfair advantages.
Well, I don't like to see how humand kind gave up already on the machine. Why do we have to lose hope?
I think machines are faster moving, but so far I didn't see a serious match Human vs Machine (Nakamura against stockfish was aided by the chess engine Rybka). I respect Nakamura, he's one of the greatest, but why did he has to be aided by a machine?
Let's look at it this way, for example, Machine against human when covering distance: a car is faster than a runner. But the runner gets to the destination anyways, which means the car is not going to be superior, just faster. Even the runner can run through a jungle and a car can't.
The same with chess: we think machines are superior only because they move faster? humans can think more than 20 plies deep, even trained beginners can do it (if a beginner is still a beginner after being trained to do so). And humans have skills and characteristics a machine lacks (like the analogy of a human running through a jungle and a car can't).
So, I don't see why we have to give up so soon (or even give up).
It's possible that I don't know enough about chess to give up, and maybe that's what human kind needs, someone who has more heart than strength. Someone crazy enough to succeed. Like those crazy guys who invented the airplane: birds can fly and humans can't?
If you could see the position right now in the game I'm playing, you could see hope right there in front of you: I'm at the endgame with queen and rook vs queen and rook, same number of pawns, same number of pawn islands. And I'm controling a file with my rook, stockfish has the rook behind a pawn. The only thing I need is to exchange queens, because they have a lot of posibilities to think and I need to cut down the branches a little bit, because the machine is better at calculation.
Sometimes you have to see to believe. This time you just have to believe to see.
BTW to beat stockfish I used a modified(I made the modification) version of Rodent ll with an elo of about 2700 fide.
Thank you for the clarification. When you said you beat stockfish I thought you were not aided by an engine. You were aided by Rodent ll.
That's what Kasparov used to say: to ally with the machine, instead of trying to beat them. I like that philosophy, but I think we can still beat them without machine aid. Thank you for your post
I modified Rodent ll to play attacking chess which gave it a horrible evaluation, meaning that it needed to be at least at depth 20 to have a small chance of winning. If it wasn't for the "deep" depth Rodentll would be playing unsound sacrifices.
Wow! It's impressive that you are able to modify Rodent II to beat stockfish! You must have good progammation skills. That's very interesting.
BTW to beat stockfish I used a modified(I made the modification) version of Rodent ll with an elo of about 2700 fide.
Thank you for the clarification. When you said you beat stockfish I thought you were not aided by an engine. You were aided by Rodent ll.
That's what Kasparov used to say: to ally with the machine, instead of trying to beat them. I like that philosophy, but I think we can still beat them without machine aid. Thank you for your post
I modified Rodent ll to play attacking chess which gave it a horrible evaluation, meaning that it needed to be at least at depth 20 to have a small chance of winning. If it wasn't for the "deep" depth Rodentll would be playing unsound sacrifices.
Wow! It's impressive that you are able to modify Rodent II to beat stockfish! You must have good progammation skills. That's very interesting.
You are giving me too much credit Rodent ll is designed to be easy to modify.
BTW to beat stockfish I used a modified(I made the modification) version of Rodent ll with an elo of about 2700 fide.
Thank you for the clarification. When you said you beat stockfish I thought you were not aided by an engine. You were aided by Rodent ll.
That's what Kasparov used to say: to ally with the machine, instead of trying to beat them. I like that philosophy, but I think we can still beat them without machine aid. Thank you for your post
I modified Rodent ll to play attacking chess which gave it a horrible evaluation, meaning that it needed to be at least at depth 20 to have a small chance of winning. If it wasn't for the "deep" depth Rodentll would be playing unsound sacrifices.
Wow! It's impressive that you are able to modify Rodent II to beat stockfish! You must have good progammation skills. That's very interesting.
You are giving me too much credit Rodent ll is designed to be easy to modify.
Ah, now I think I understand: you modified its parameters. I thought you meant you modified the whole engine code 
hahahah
BTW to beat stockfish I used a modified(I made the modification) version of Rodent ll with an elo of about 2700 fide.
Thank you for the clarification. When you said you beat stockfish I thought you were not aided by an engine. You were aided by Rodent ll.
That's what Kasparov used to say: to ally with the machine, instead of trying to beat them. I like that philosophy, but I think we can still beat them without machine aid. Thank you for your post
I modified Rodent ll to play attacking chess which gave it a horrible evaluation, meaning that it needed to be at least at depth 20 to have a small chance of winning. If it wasn't for the "deep" depth Rodentll would be playing unsound sacrifices.
Wow! It's impressive that you are able to modify Rodent II to beat stockfish! You must have good progammation skills. That's very interesting.
You are giving me too much credit Rodent ll is designed to be easy to modify.
Ah, now I think I understand: you modified its parameters. I thought you meant you modified the whole engine code hahahah
lol
Here is the game I just finished. I lost again because stockfish didn't want to exchange queens and they are so full of posibilities.... In the game I'm playing right now we exchanged queens in the middle game, so I hope to win this time
According to chess.com analysis, in the move 27... Bf5 in which I got stuck at the end of the line sugested by the analysis I don't see a good position, because there would be a passed pawn at the a file. I like more the position I got in the actual game.
I was winning all the way to the move 11 by 1 point
But I only got 87.7% accuracy... that's very bad, in my usual chess.com daily games I got more than 90%, sometimes 96%... or 97%... I have to focus more!
According to Lucas chess analysis, I played a very bad endgame (Only 681 elo performance, because of the queen multiple options). But I wasn't so bad at the middle game with 2665 elo performance. But way less than stockfish with its 3052 elo performance (3458 elo at the endgame).
But it's ok, in this next game I'll win. We already exchanged queens in middle game. Queen's endgame is the worst situation in human vs machine match.
Ok people, time for uploding the next match played!!
I lost again, but I have played the almost perfect game!!! 
More like Noobfish.