It's real pity SF is not alive, I mean Fischer, to organise a match, he would certainly have crushed SF.
Not to mention SF finding Bg4 here, just forget about it.
That is why I am right when I say perfect chess is 3000 elos away and both SF and Alpha are complete patzers.
"I make no claim to knowing when or if Fischer made mistakes, but I’m sure he made enough of them to be substantially weaker than Stockfish."
You don't know but you are sure. Rock-solid logic!
It is a statistical certainty that Fischer made mistakes, and that, centipawn for centipawn, they outweigh the moves he made that are better than Stockfish’s moves. So yes, the logic is rock-solid.
Fischer got really strong by 1971/2 - 2780 Elo strong. AlphaZero got really strong one day this year - perhaps 3500 Elo strong.
(There are well over 1000 recorded Fischer games and I too studied them all, long ago).
Note that when you have two players, one finding a vastly superior move in some positions not only obviously does not make them a better player, it may not even mean their reasoning was better! This is the phenomenon of "lucking out".
As a simple example, suppose there is a player A who is careless about losing his queen ( 
). Suppose there us a position where A blunders his queen and finds it leads to a mate (which he had not forseen). A somewhat better player B might avoid the loss of the queen. A still better player C sees why the queen sacrifice is justified and plays it. The fact that A played the right move in this one instance is not good evidence he is better than player B even though it is correct. His expertise is better judged by overall quality of moves.
chesster, see #85. You are over-simplifying (when not faulting logic).
Am I? I think it’s easy to see: once in a while a human plays a move better than the T1 move, but much more often they play a move worse than the T1 move. Therefore, on average they play worse than the engine.
"I make no claim to knowing when or if Fischer made mistakes, but I’m sure he made enough of them to be substantially weaker than Stockfish."
You don't know but you are sure. Rock-solid logic!
It is a statistical certainty that Fischer made mistakes, and that, centipawn for centipawn, they outweigh the moves he made that are better than Stockfish’s moves. So yes, the logic is rock-solid.
Interesting, you like centipawns, but don't like 'The Secret of Chess', which uses centipawn evaluation...
Thanks ME for having SF at that strength: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fishcooking/4mk8bLhd26Q
Lyudmil Tsvetkov, it is ME.
Now I think, though, after all that NEGATIVE opinions/outright insults, it would have been better not to contribute to the SF project, so that SF, Komodo and Houdini are 200 elos weaker by now...
It is so regrettable, so insulting and so unjust.
I have contributed so much, have sacrificed so much, have worked HARD like no one else, and get this in return...
Pity.
Fischer got really strong by 1971/2 - 2780 Elo strong. AlphaZero got really strong one day this year - perhaps 3500 Elo strong.
(There are well over 1000 recorded Fischer games and I too studied them all, long ago).
No, if SF fails to solve half of the positional test suite, then Fischer is better.
Fischer gets all of SF's tactics too.
Fischer has played and his pgn includes less than 850 games, including blitz and simultaneous exhibitions. If those are left out, the collection shrinks to 750 games or so.
To engines are 2500 elos at most positionally currently. they are strong overall, because they make no shallow tactical mistakes and never get tired, that is all.
If an engine had Fischer's positional evaluation, then it would play at 5000 elos or so, that is why I am fully right in saying Alpha and SF are just patzers.
Note that when you have two players, one finding a vastly superior move in some positions not only obviously does not make them a better player, it may not even mean their reasoning was better! This is the phenomenon of "lucking out".
As a simple example, suppose there is a player A who is careless about losing his queen ( ). Suppose there us a position where A blunders his queen and finds it leads to a mate (which he had not forseen). A somewhat better player B might avoid the loss of the queen. A still better player C sees why the queen sacrifice is justified and plays it. The fact that A played the right move in this one instance is not good evidence he is better than player B even though it is correct. His expertise is better judged by overall quality of moves.
My latest book does precisely that: using statistically significant databases.
Out of the 112 fens in the positional suite, SF fails to solve at least 40, but maybe higher than that.
That is a significant number, and statistically relevant.
It depends on whether the positions are a representative sample of those positions that occur in real play. Stockfish is the highest rated player on Earth (ignoring AlphaZero) because it does better across the entire range of positions that it meets than any other player (AlphaZero excepted). This is the same reason Carlsen is the highest rated human player.
Note also that to confirm StockFish has it wrong you need to play it (with assistance, if desired!) with adequate time from the position from both sides and to do better in the two games than it does. Otherwise you are at risk of an appealing but misleading conclusion. I acknowledge that this is possible once you have identified positions where Stockfish has trouble. AlphaZero also showed that Stockfish has trouble in certain positional lines!
Fischer got really strong by 1971/2 - 2780 Elo strong. AlphaZero got really strong one day this year - perhaps 3500 Elo strong.
(There are well over 1000 recorded Fischer games and I too studied them all, long ago).
No, if SF fails to solve half of the positional test suite, then Fischer is better.
No. Chess is not a competition of solving a certain suite of positions. It is about playing games from start to end and getting results, which involves every position that you meet along the way. By that correct metric, the Elo system is a fair quantifier of relative standard of play.
It depends on whether the positions are a representative sample of those positions that occur in real play. Stockfish is the highest rated player on Earth (ignoring AlphaZero) because it does better across the entire range of positions that it meets than any other player (AlphaZero excepted). This is the same reason Carlsen is the highest rated human player.
Note also that to confirm StockFish has it wrong you need to play it (with assistance, if desired!) with adequate time from the position from both sides and to do better in the two games than it does. Otherwise you are at risk of an appealing but misleading conclusion. I acknowledge that this is possible once you have identified positions where Stockfish has trouble. AlphaZero also showed that Stockfish has trouble in certain positional lines!
There are a representative sample, of course.
I even left out some of the more difficult positions, as they would not quite resemble a puzzle, rather than require very deep analysis. SF for sure will see none of those.
Those are just some random best moves, which have some outward appeal, or are unusual, psychologically difficult, etc. Certainly representative of the larger picture.
Concerning certainty of the solutions, well, I have my well-tested methods here, intuition(many similar positions seen/analysed) + meticulously checking with the engine the possible alternatives to a sufficient depth. I mean, a manual check, not just feeding the position to SF and let it decide, as it will often go wrong in this way, but practically exhausting all relevant lines with the command force/go and then seeing SF output to a certain depth. Of course, one needs to prune a lot of lines in this way, and here is where intuition comes.
Usually, that gives very good results. There might be some positions wrong, but very few.
As already noted, a best move is just any random move along the tree. There is not any reason to suppose any statistical dsicrepancy exists.
My observations also show SF usually sees less than half of the possible best moves.
SF is happy I did not entrust it with solving a closed positions test suite from my games, as in this case it would solve 11/100 at most, that is, 10%.
It depends on whether the positions are a representative sample of those positions that occur in real play. Stockfish is the highest rated player on Earth (ignoring AlphaZero) because it does better across the entire range of positions that it meets than any other player (AlphaZero excepted). This is the same reason Carlsen is the highest rated human player.
Note also that to confirm StockFish has it wrong you need to play it (with assistance, if desired!) with adequate time from the position from both sides and to do better in the two games than it does. Otherwise you are at risk of an appealing but misleading conclusion. I acknowledge that this is possible once you have identified positions where Stockfish has trouble. AlphaZero also showed that Stockfish has trouble in certain positional lines!
There are a representative sample, of course.
Unless they were randomly sampled from games that are relevant, they are not. The best way to get a random sample of moves on which to test a player is to let them play games.
"I make no claim to knowing when or if Fischer made mistakes, but I’m sure he made enough of them to be substantially weaker than Stockfish."
You don't know but you are sure. Rock-solid logic!
It is a statistical certainty that Fischer made mistakes, and that, centipawn for centipawn, they outweigh the moves he made that are better than Stockfish’s moves. So yes, the logic is rock-solid.
Interesting, you like centipawns, but don't like 'The Secret of Chess', which uses centipawn evaluation...
Thanks ME for having SF at that strength: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fishcooking/4mk8bLhd26Q
Lyudmil Tsvetkov, it is ME.
Now I think, though, after all that NEGATIVE opinions/outright insults, it would have been better not to contribute to the SF project, so that SF, Komodo and Houdini are 200 elos weaker by now...
It is so regrettable, so insulting and so unjust.
I have contributed so much, have sacrificed so much, have worked HARD like no one else, and get this in return...
Pity.
I don’t like centipawns, they’re just the easiest way to make my point. Now, as for the 200 points assertion, I can’t prove you wrong, but what has it contributed to chess outside of the top 100 players in the world? If Stockfish was still 3200, no one would care, because it would still be the closest we could get to the objective truth in chess. Whatever contribution you have made to chess is cancelled out by the endless boasting on this and your other threads. Everyday chess players, however, contribute to chess every time they interact with another chess player and with every single thing they do on this site. You can’t say the same.
Lyudomil, it is good that your ideas for an evaluation function have been enthusiastically received. However, you rashly claimed that your ideas are so good that if implemented they would result in a 4600 Elo engine, which is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, your claim to have been singlehandedly responsible for a 200 point improvement in Stockfish appear almost as implausible, given the graph of its Elo over the years:
Could you clarify in which release(s) your ideas were incorporated?
"I make no claim to knowing when or if Fischer made mistakes, but I’m sure he made enough of them to be substantially weaker than Stockfish."
You don't know but you are sure. Rock-solid logic!
It is a statistical certainty that Fischer made mistakes, and that, centipawn for centipawn, they outweigh the moves he made that are better than Stockfish’s moves. So yes, the logic is rock-solid.
Interesting, you like centipawns, but don't like 'The Secret of Chess', which uses centipawn evaluation...
Thanks ME for having SF at that strength: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!topic/fishcooking/4mk8bLhd26Q
Lyudmil Tsvetkov, it is ME.
Now I think, though, after all that NEGATIVE opinions/outright insults, it would have been better not to contribute to the SF project, so that SF, Komodo and Houdini are 200 elos weaker by now...
It is so regrettable, so insulting and so unjust.
I have contributed so much, have sacrificed so much, have worked HARD like no one else, and get this in return...
Pity.
I don’t like centipawns, they’re just the easiest way to make my point. Now, as for the 200 points assertion, I can’t prove you wrong, but what has it contributed to chess outside of the top 100 players in the world? If Stockfish was still 3200, no one would care, because it would still be the closest we could get to the objective truth in chess. Whatever contribution you have made to chess is cancelled out by the endless boasting on this and your other threads. Everyday chess players, however, contribute to chess every time they interact with another chess player and with every single thing they do on this site. You can’t say the same.
So, for you, it is more important to eat your lunch and go to the toilet than write new book?
Valuable things are those that need hard effort and lead to discoveries.
Everyone can achieve standard things.
So, why you deny all my effort and contribution?
Lyudomil, it is good that your ideas for an evaluation function have been enthusiastically received. However, you rashly claimed that your ideas are so good that if implemented they would result in a 4600 Elo engine, which is ridiculous.
Unfortunately, your claim to have been singlehandedly responsible for a 200 point improvement in Stockfish appear almost as implausible, given the graph of its Elo over the years:
Could you clarify in which release(s) your ideas were incorporated?
Starting from SF 4, but even before that, I published my Little Chess Evaluation Compendium in early 2010, and all programmers read it, of course, Houdini, for example. Marco and Joona for sure too.
In late 2012, before SF 3 and the Framework, SF already was implementing some of my ideas(I published a revised extended edition of the compendium in 2012), for example bonus for rooks on advanced ranks.
Then, a bunch of ideas were certainly incorporated in SF 3.
My real contribution however started with SF 4 and DD, when, based on my suggestion on the Talkchess forum, SF added bonus for connected pawns(defended and duos) in terms of rank. That was a major break-through, which thoroughly changed SF's playing style from attacking to positional attacking, due to the nice space bonus in terms of advanced pawns.
This, and some other 10 or so ideas I suggested were implemented in 2014(will not enumerate them all, you can find some of them in the introduction to 'The Secret of Chess'), which helped SF become the TCEC champion for the first time, the new number 1! I doubt this would have happened without my contributions, so I/we were the champions then.
New patches, based on my sugesstions, were implemented in SF 6 and 7.
I did not contribute directly to SF 8, but my ideas were still there to influence the SF developers, and indeed, some of the evaluation terms in SF 8 are based on my prior ideas.
I have gifted copies of 'The Secret of Chess' to some SF programmers, but they have made such a mess of the code in the latest years, with so many redundancies, that it is difficult to implement anything sensible at all.
Apart from that, you need examples to understand what is going on, and that is what I have been providing in earlier SF versions, but no one to do that now.
Please note, that you will find 30 or so threads on Talkchess and Fishcooking, where SF programmers thank me for a specific patch that has just succeeded, but my name is mentioned just couple of times officially on SF pages.
You really don't need to get that much official, do you? I guess we are all friends, in the SF Framework.
H4 is like the first move I would consider.
Me too.
But that is an engine. SF has some penalties for missing/advanced shelter pawns, and as the lines are long for a convincing score, it probably goes astray.
As said, SF does not see anything longer than 2 moves.
True that.
By the way, you still haven't answered my question.
I don't know what you are talking about, maybe you should ask it again.
You also have not quite answered which country you hail from.
If you mean a position, I saw nothing special about it, so no need to comment.
What are you talking about?