A Newbie drew Stockfish at highest level (2 draws so far)

It has being almost the perfect game: the first mistake was in move 41, all the way into the endgame. I reached 3119 elo in middle game, omg!

In the move 41 I was looking for a draw because the pawn at a5 was doomed. But the pawn f and e didn't allow me to get a draw.

It's ok, I have being so close. In the next match I will win 

Ladies and Gentlemen... the moment nobody was expecting. It's time to show the result of the next game against stockfish 11.

The coronavirus version of the challenge.

And the result is...... 

I GOT A DRAW!!!!!!!!!

If someone has a premium account, please run an analisys and post the screenshots. I would like to see a chess.com analysis. I analyzed it with Lucas chess. It looks like the perfect game. I made an Elo performance of 3228:

In this match I got a draw. In one of the next matches I will win. Because this is not over, I will win!

Some people said it was impossible. Some said it was not possible....

At least I demonstrated a newbie can draw stockfish if he studies some books first and get help in one of the moves from a cat (see the game comments at move 4. a3).

More importantly I showed that the war is not over: machines are not better than humans in chess, or thinking.

Machines are faster, but not better.

This is the first time in history than a human gets a draw against stockfish without another machine's help. Thus, mankind honor has being restored: for now we are in a tie. But next time we will win and humiliate machines.

I don't understand why people have any issue with machines being better at chess than humans. After all, they can run faster. Despite that we still respect the fastest human and strive to be the fastest human (e.g. Olympic 100m). The fact that a machine can run faster than us isn't surprising and doesn't reduce our aspiration to be the fastest human alive. There are lots of things that machines can do better than us and chess just happens to be one of them. 

But chess is not a thing machines do better than us:

In first place we programmed them. So they are just doing what they were told to do by us. Ergo, they are not better, they are just obeying what they were told by programmers.

In second place, they suck at it. The only thing they can do is just to obey fast. But they are unable to do something new or different.

In third place, being faster at something doesn't mean to be better at it: quality and speed are two different things.

Well played with the draw -- I enjoy reading your comments
I hope you will win one of these days.

brah

hoiiiii yaaaaaaaa

Ermm, they are given you still have a negative score against SF and haven't beaten it once.

Also, you are certainly not the first one to draw against Stockfish.

Well done !!

Did someone else do it before, without the help of a machine?

i will attack your points in order. 

1.  No, their accomplishments are not relegated to the people who created the computer. If a boss tells his employees to make a genius invention, and his employee does, the employee is the creator of the invention, not the boss. They find new moves and novelties everyday, and those moves can be seen in the top chess games. Go to any one of Carauna's games and look at his opening theory, it has all been optimized by the best engines. 

2. This is ridiculous. They are very, very good at chess. You say they are only good at being fast, and yet you conduct no experiment to show this. They are better, just like humans, when they get longer to think. Stockfish and most engines have a pruning system to find the best lines, not unlike what grandmasters do. They are absolutely able to do new things, as they find new moves, the best moves, every single day as previously stated. 

3. You keep saying they are only good at being fast. You provide no evidence for this, and you can find none as computers are good at chess fast and slow; just like humans except more accurate. They never blunder, and will attack every single mistake you make without fail. Along with this, they essentially don't make mistakes ESPECIALLY WITH MORE TIME TO THINK. Sure, speed and quality happen to be two different things but the computers are better at both of them idiot. 

The reason you were able to draw is that you played a computer on a phone, with lower processing power, and only gave it 40 seconds to think. On top of this, you played a very dull opening with the intention of trading pieces and drawing it. Every move you played was only played after a very long deliberation period and the only plan in your moves was to achieve the draw. 

You will never be able to beat the computer because you are too weak of a player. Maybe Carlsen in his peak could beat the computer you have set up with limitations, but he wouldn't do it by playing a dull opening and trading off all the pieces he could. 

Yes people have drawn the computer before. Almost anyone can gander over to the limited stockfish you have set up and play the quintessentially dull opening you use and play it game after game until they draw. 

Also, you do not improve by playing games like this. You improve by doing tactics, learning endgames, and trying you very best to understand the game. You are not the computer, you cannot play chess with pure calculation. You need human intuition and an understanding of how the game is won before you can consider yourself a good chess player. 

To end this, I challenge you to go and play the full version of stockfish on a computer, and let it go to ply 40 or something like that. Let it think for a long time, and I would love to see that game. You will never draw and never win.

That's dumb.

And even though it's common enough to draw a strong engine with a repetition, I have my doubts about your game.

Not that I'm trying to start a fight, but you already got a lot of nice comments, so I figure it's time for something a little more realistic

Sure, that's the logical way to look at it, but people associate chess with intelligence, and to some extent or another people believe intelligence is uniquely human. When a computer can beat the best humans they see it as an affront to personhood. To resolve the cognitive dissonance they decide engines must not actually be any good.

It's an emotional reaction based in a lack of technical knowledge, lack of self awareness, or both.

Well, I wish you the best! Good luck (you'll need it.). I mean, really, Stockfish is a very good machine, so yeah...

Thank you very much to those who post the nice comments. They are very motivating and are a good help in this Don Quixote pursue. Maybe that's what we need to beat the machine, someone who fights a lost cause. Like those people who throw stones to tanks, or David throwing a stone to Goliat. The spirit of fighting an already lost cause usually brings victory. In the world we need crazy people doing crazy things.

And thank you too to those who desagree with my "machine vs human" thoughts. I'm not an AI expert, so I may be saying wrong things about human-machine comparison. I like to hear different opinions, I appreciate their interest and different points of view.

This human-machine sci-fi topic is always alive.

Sometimes I say funny things in a joking tone  (things like "restoring human honour", etc.). I exagerate like that on purpose to make it funny, but even though it has a touch of fun, it has an essence of truth anyways, because I don't agree when people say machines are better playing at chess:

1) They are slaves, we originally created them with that purpose, even though we are also trying to make them more human.

2) They just follow instructions, they can't do something different or creative. For example, they can't say in the middle of a game "you didn't realize your king was under check, so I just take it and you lose the match", like humans do in street chess, for example. Because we are creative, and machines not. Only this fact already make us better at chess, to be able to modify its rules on the go. Machines can't do that.

3) Calculating chess moves machines are same or even worst than us. I can see 30 moves deep, stockfish only 20. If it's configured for 30, ok it can see 30, but maybe it needs a year calculating, when I already saw in 10 minutes. This morning I just did that, I only played 1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 and I visualized the Ruy Lopez opening, middle game and endgame all the way to the checkmate without touching any piece. Afterwards I played moving the pieces after visualizing and it was correct and precise, except it had some very weak moves. I never saw a machine doing that, they are unable.

And this doens't mean I'm good at chess: GMs can play blindfolded, etc. That's really much more impresive. And with strong moves.

4) They are faster, but not better. I just showed with this draw that we are equal. Next time when I win I will show we are better.

5) I think that if what I'm doing a GM would try, she/he would beat stockfish for sure. I think they just didn't want to try a dayly game against stockfish. I don't know why. The Nakamura-stockfish event is the only one I found on internet in wikipedia, and he was aided by Rybka II. He got a draw, but I think he would win without machine help if he would just try a dayly match.