Human versus Machine

Latest Stockfish 17 is difficult to beat, I acknowledge.

But as nice strategic compensation you might learn a whole lot from it.

Try it.

To tell you the truth, even drawing Stockfish 17 is an issue now, if you draw 20 out of a 100 games, then you are very good indeed.

If you win a single game, you are stronger than the top humans.

It simply plays so perfectly, not full perfection still, but extremely refined in deeper strategy alike.

It is better than the best humans in strategy already, the subtle moves it finds, not to mention tactics.

It is so well rounded.

Pleasure to play and analyse with.

Wasn't the case with former versions.

So that when you grab Stockfish currently, you might be sure the suggested moves are extremely accurate, if not absolutely best on every occasion.

And the ideas it suggests, no human will even think of.

It makes chess much deeper and varied.

It alters opening play too, in Stockfish games you will see openings that never appear over the board.

Real pleasure.

Hi Lyudmil.

Drawing 20/100 sounds awesome!

Did you beat Stockfish 17 yet?

You can do that, 1 in 5 games, in case you close the position, aiming for a fortress.

Stockfish still misunderstands that drawing method badly.

It will show 3-4 full pawns edge, when the game is actually draw.

Maybe you can try it.

Trying to draw by exchanging pieces is a bit harder, but not impossible.

Chess or tariffs?

I haven't even tried to compete against engines for many years. Seemed futile.

Probably tariffs. Chess doesn't affect very many people, and those that it does affect the effect is very, very small. Tariffs affect almost everyone.

The translation is fine (better than my basic German). It is a serious expert look and rather positive about Lyudmil's achievements!

Yeah, but they suck.

Especially when you levy them on your partners.

Thanks, Walter Eigenmann wrote a good article.

Unfortunately those bright days when you could snatch by the wig any random engine and beat the hell out of it are long gone. No fun sparring with latest Stockfish when the most you can do is draw.

I haven't tried with longer thinking time, but at blitz Stockfish is insurmountable.

What concerns language translations, current top translator software lag far behind top chess engines, Stockfish beats all humans, but translator programs still make a hodgepodge of any more complex text. Seemingly language simply has many more specific rules than chess.

Just an aside.

The latest LLMs are rather good at translation among their other talents. Even GPT3 was competitive with dedictated translation software (which relied on less powerful machine learning algorithms than the very large transformer architecture used by modern LLMs), and the two generations since then have each been found to be better than the previous one.

Sure, they are not perfect, but they are good, especially for easier translations such as English-German-English.

There might be improvements, but take a more complex literary text, and the results will be dismal. Too many specific language rules, that are not formulated by the translator programmers.

You need decades to do that.

Computer chess evolved in the course of 80 years, so that at long last we have Stockfish giant.

80 years, no joke.

With literary texts, arts and language even more complex structures, you can not expect good results in less than a century.

The power of the machines is irrelevant at that.

You need the software rules.

Current Stockfish, for example, running on single core, will beat +100, -0, =0 the hell out of an older engine from 20 years ago, running on 10 192 cores.

Simple as that.

That's why humans edit computer translated texts, and they put a lot of effort into that.

All the rest about LLM is hype, anticipating good publicity and relevant financial gains.

It's all about the market.

Anyone seeing the win for black?

Or any engine?

🤔Human versus Machine

IA too strong 💪

Thresshold for handicap is about 3 pawns if not a piece right now ain't it ?

TF2 reference

What difference does that make?

Let's say you own a coffee shop. Your partner, or friend, comes in to buy a cup of coffee. You don't get to absolve your friend of paying sales tax just because they are your partner. Just like when you go buy a chess set from the hobby shop they own. You both have to reconcile your bookkeeping. When a trading partner levies tariffs, or tax, on us it only makes sense to return the favor.

Would it make sense for you to pay sales tax on the chess set you bought but your partner doesn't pay sales tax on the coffee they bought?

To put it into chess terms would it be fair if the game started out with you having 15 pieces, but I have 16 pieces? Me having an extra piece "sucks" doesn't it? The solution is to level the playing field. Start out with the same number of pieces.

So, what is your conclusion without the less than ideal metaphor?