Human versus Machine

The same one you are.

Lyudmil, ratings are awarded by chess organisations for competitive play. Go forth and compete!

In my case it is easy: I am over 3500.

Till when are we going to discuss this?

I told you, I am a PhD-holder and have 31 other certificates.

I am too lazy to get another one.

Wasnt there another Ljudmil who translated stockfish to assembler ? Or that was You too ?

Not me.

I have a namesake.

I know Lyudmil Antonov has been working on SF, but I am not aware what precisely he did.

Anyway, ASMFish is better than SF only at very short time controls.

Speed is not that important in modern chess, already.

Then he is too.

Another victory by me, over Stockfish 8:

You can verify Stockfish's moves as black, too, if you don't believe me. Run it through your own. I let it think to at least a Depth of 22 for each move.

Also notice that several of white's moves are not engine choices. That's because they are my own (human) moves.

Once I'd won material (rook for a knight), I simply traded down to an endgame, up a pawn. And yes, I realize that I missed the quickest mate. But, still—a win's a win.

Annotations included for move explanations.

At this point, for the fun of discussion, perhaps it's safe to say I'm much stronger than Lyudmil? If he's 3500, then I'm probably 4000, for example.

(But to be completely serious here, as a 2100 player, I'm certainly not stronger than Stockfish. However, I do have the option of take-backs, so . . . This is why such victories are possible. Truthfully, I believe I lost this game over a dozen times, if you count each time I played a move and then found myself suddenly losing . . . before I found a winning line. Either way: point made?)

OK. I am fine with that.

I just wanted him to acknowledge it.

You MAKE YOURSELF funny.

This is draw, right?

How did you win that???

You played SF at half strength, or even 1/4 strength, as visible from the game, right?

So, SF was somewhere 2300 at most.

And you did take back moves, not only for you, but for SF TOO...

Hilarious. Indeed, a very bad game, in each and every respect.

So, you have made take-backs every second move! And you acknowledge that publicly.

That is your credibility.

I, I never take back moves during competitive games.

Please, DON'T make yourself funnier than that.

On above diagram a7-a5 simply draws, and that will be seen by EVERYONE on this forum, but SF has MISSED it!

HobbyPlayer, please don't post such absurd games any more.

Your <2100 strength clearly transpires.

If you want to learn real chess, the knowledge is here, no take-backs: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400

It is correct that a5 draws. But it is plausible that Stockfish would play another move at only 22 ply (which is a couple of hundredths of a second on my machine in that position - earlier on, it would be quite a few seconds). Looking at this has confirmed that the way Stockfish' preferences develop over time can change quite a bit when analysing the same position twice: after I had looked a bit deeper, it wouldn't play anything but a5, (presumably because it keeps past analysis).

It is also true that you do not have a legitimate very high rating yourself - self-awarded ones really don't count (your old rating is very respectable, but bears no resemblance to your wacky claims).

You might prefer to have a ratified public match against an engine to demonstrate your skills. chess.com might be up for validating such an impressive show, and this would be tremendous publicity for you. What sort of result could you achieve, under what conditions?

No, SF will NEVER miss finding the draw here, NEVER, even if it had just 0.00001 sec.

Never. If you had played, analysed with SF, you should know that.

SF sees everything that is shallow, especially in the endgame, and there is no shallower position than this one.

So, I don't understand why you should defend him: he obviously fumbled something with the settings.

That is what happens when you try to prove a right person, a hard-working right person wrong.

Truth will out, sooner or later.

It is true I don't have a high official rating, but I am extremely strong, objectively.

Elroch, please, give me a break.

I myself declared I am intent on playing competitively and proving my real strength, but also that this will happen at a later point in time.

It is as simple as that.

Not even competitively against computers? (i.e. in public)

The problem is not computers or humans.

This is simply not on my priorities list currently.

I have to realign from meditative to competitive mode, and that takes life-long transformations.

Depth 7 for SF in this pawn endgame is simply hilarious.

SF goes to 30-40-50 plies in no time at all here.

Kc6, and also Kd6 are fully equivalent to a5, they all draw, so this might explain why SF hesitates a bit: the lines are equivalent.

The fatal black mistake was commited later:

Here SF allegedly played 48...a6???

Now, somehow I don't believe that.

My SF gives mate in 17 for a6 and 0.0 for the drawing Kb7 move.

He will probably explain what happened.

Yeah, a6 just blunders the pawn. Can't see the point of it.

Stockfish does play this at level 8, but that requires less then 0.01 seconds on my machine.