Should you like to play a real gambler, ... rename the lc0 exe file with . lc0-valuehead to set the engine to play without any in-depth search
I have to apologize, the renamed exe file must include policyhead string to get the engine to play instantly. Not valuehead. My bad.
... it would help if you know, against which version of stockfish you played. I hope you could understand my english.
Hi, considering the late 2014 date, it could have been either Stockfish DD (aka SF 4.5 , yet already a year old), Stockfish 5 (released end of May, 2014) or some development version (as SF 6 was released later on, end of Jan, 2015).
... it would help if you know, against which version of stockfish you played. I hope you could understand my english.
Hi, considering the late 2014 date, it could have been either Stockfish DD (aka SF 4.5 , yet already a year old), Stockfish 5 (released end of May, 2014) or some development version (as SF 6 was released later on, end of Jan, 2015).
Yes, at this time, the engines could have some trouble with sacrifices without immediate benefit. For a human, Stockfish 5 is very strong but for today’s engines, it is "very weak". Humans theoretically can play a almost perfect game of chess, but it is very rare of course. Even I played already 2 games with over 98% accuracy. Although Chess.com's Gamereview is very inaccurate without diamond membership. I never analyzed them with a stronger engine on a stronger kind of "Gamereview" but i propably should do. Can you imagine, that Stockfish 17.1 will be a "very weak" engine one day? Actually, the more complicated the position, the higher the chance that Stockfish 17.1 will be wrong. And in these positions, the difference between two engines will be clear. The limitations of chess engines are fascinating, aren’t they?
Fascinating. First of all, it is theoretically possible to beat an chess engine in 2014, because today’s engines do. I analyzed the position with 2 different engines: Stockfish 17.1 with NNUE and Stockfish 17.1 Lite by Chess.com. Stockfish with NNUE says that the position is ~ +0.70 at a depth of 59. And Lite says that the position is ~ +1.85 on a depth of 47. Now there are two possibilities: first, the Stockfish Lite Engine sees a sequence that Stockfish with NNUE doesn’t see, or second - the more likely, that the Stockfish with NNUE sees a defense that the Stockfish Lite Engine doesn’t see. And both are suggesting the queen sacrifice. But what does it mean? It means that the position is very complicated. And the fact that one of those two very strong Engines at a very high depth is wrong, is the reason, why your opponent stockfish couldn’t possibly played perfectly. Especially because the engines in 2014 are weaker and slower than today’s engines. So maybe your opponent stockfish saw the wrong defense. Maybe it doesn’t saw the queen sacrifice at all. but it definitely didn’t saw the right moves after your queen sacrifice. After that, i analyzed the position with Stockfish 14 with NNUE and it doesn’t sees the queen sacrifice with a depth of 39 - It says that the position is ~ –1.28 So this position is way too complicated for 2014 engines. I didn’t read the entire forum - not even the entire first site, but it would help if you know, against which version of stockfish you played. I hope you could understand my english.