Stockfish is blind!

Sort:
Avatar of TheGElCOgecko
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:

Lyudmil, for you to say that you can beat Stockfish is for you to say that you are the best chess entity in the world, and when you give microscopic proof of this claim, you are simply just making a fool of yourself

OK, I will retranslate my claim: I have played the MOST chess games against SF of any man living.

Sounds better?

Thank you for saying probably the easiest claim to prove wrong. You don't know who is the 2nd most, and there is no record book for most games. I might be mistaken, and there is a leaderboard for this, but I highly doubt it. If you have no proof, then man, you are not even TRYING to convince anyone that you're right anymore, you're just spitting stuff out of your mouth

Avatar of kineticpower
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Since many here think I am weak and not worhty of writing good books,

above is a position from one of my games against Stockfish played on talkchess

forum in late 2014.

TC was 30 minutes per game, so close to analytical.

How many people will find the move with which I won against Stockfish?

It is obvious that ALPHA ZERO blind Stockfish

No news from Alpha for a veeeery looong time.

Have they given up.

Latest SF bashing them?

NO ONE CAN BEAT ALPHA ZERO MAN

Come on, we already discussed that - it RAN on 100 times stronger hardware and the training hardware costed 10 000 times more than SF hardware or so.

Alpha plays at 2300-2400, so any entity, mechanical or even better human playing stronger than that will certainly beat it.

The perfect player will come at 6000 elos or so so a lot of leeway for improvement and thrashing suboptimal engines.

Lyudmil, you don't know that. All anyone knows is that it has played as the best engine int he world, and would almost inevitably play slower on a regular computer. But you can't demote the best engine in the world to play at a measly 2300 when even Deep Blue could do better than that in 1996. You have absolutely NO evidence that it would play that low, you're just making stuff up for a reason I can not see

You lack BASIC computing knowledge - 4 TPUS(the hardware Alpha used) are roughly equivalent to 2000+ standard processing units, even not taking into account ALL other accompanying factors that strongly disfavoured SF.

 

 

You are right in saying I have no knowledge of all that computer stuff. I am just some amateur programmer in HTML, CSS, and Java. You are still wrong though in saying that AlphaZero plays at 2300 on a normal computer. I know that a normal computer today has much more processing power than the best computer in 1996. So:

Better chess engine than Deep Blue + Better computer than Deep Blue = Better rating than Deep Blue.

I don't know what rating Deep Blue was, but it was WELL over 2300, so AlphaZero COULDNT play NEAR 2300.

Yes, I don't have much computer knowledge, but you don't have much common sense, and that's where your argument is flawed

good point... as this thread is going nowhere MODS PLEASE DELETE THREAD

Avatar of Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
josiahpower wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Since many here think I am weak and not worhty of writing good books,

above is a position from one of my games against Stockfish played on talkchess

forum in late 2014.

TC was 30 minutes per game, so close to analytical.

How many people will find the move with which I won against Stockfish?

It is obvious that ALPHA ZERO blind Stockfish

No news from Alpha for a veeeery looong time.

Have they given up.

Latest SF bashing them?

NO ONE CAN BEAT ALPHA ZERO MAN

Come on, we already discussed that - it RAN on 100 times stronger hardware and the training hardware costed 10 000 times more than SF hardware or so.

Alpha plays at 2300-2400, so any entity, mechanical or even better human playing stronger than that will certainly beat it.

The perfect player will come at 6000 elos or so so a lot of leeway for improvement and thrashing suboptimal engines.

Lyudmil, you don't know that. All anyone knows is that it has played as the best engine int he world, and would almost inevitably play slower on a regular computer. But you can't demote the best engine in the world to play at a measly 2300 when even Deep Blue could do better than that in 1996. You have absolutely NO evidence that it would play that low, you're just making stuff up for a reason I can not see

You lack BASIC computing knowledge - 4 TPUS(the hardware Alpha used) are roughly equivalent to 2000+ standard processing units, even not taking into account ALL other accompanying factors that strongly disfavoured SF.

 

 

You are right in saying I have no knowledge of all that computer stuff. I am just some amateur programmer in HTML, CSS, and Java. You are still wrong though in saying that AlphaZero plays at 2300 on a normal computer. I know that a normal computer today has much more processing power than the best computer in 1996. So:

Better chess engine than Deep Blue + Better computer than Deep Blue = Better rating than Deep Blue.

I don't know what rating Deep Blue was, but it was WELL over 2300, so AlphaZero COULDNT play NEAR 2300.

Yes, I don't have much computer knowledge, but you don't have much common sense, and that's where your argument is flawed

good point... as this thread is going nowhere MODS PLEASE DELETE THREAD

Following your logic, 90% of threads on Chess.com should be deleted.

At least, this thread HAS some USEFUL stuff other threads are lacking.

Do you really hate so much original content?

Btw., if you are in the dark and what to know more what high level chess with engines is all about, currently you can read 'Human versus Machine' for free on the Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Don't miss that occasion.

In the future, top engine chess will be more and more a reference as to the objectivity of the game.

Avatar of josephyossi

HAS ANYONE FOUND THE 25 line to mate!?! Just reveal it 

Avatar of Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Since many here think I am weak and not worhty of writing good books,

above is a position from one of my games against Stockfish played on talkchess

forum in late 2014.

TC was 30 minutes per game, so close to analytical.

How many people will find the move with which I won against Stockfish?

It is obvious that ALPHA ZERO blind Stockfish

No news from Alpha for a veeeery looong time.

Have they given up.

Latest SF bashing them?

NO ONE CAN BEAT ALPHA ZERO MAN

Come on, we already discussed that - it RAN on 100 times stronger hardware and the training hardware costed 10 000 times more than SF hardware or so.

Alpha plays at 2300-2400, so any entity, mechanical or even better human playing stronger than that will certainly beat it.

The perfect player will come at 6000 elos or so so a lot of leeway for improvement and thrashing suboptimal engines.

Lyudmil, you don't know that. All anyone knows is that it has played as the best engine int he world, and would almost inevitably play slower on a regular computer. But you can't demote the best engine in the world to play at a measly 2300 when even Deep Blue could do better than that in 1996. You have absolutely NO evidence that it would play that low, you're just making stuff up for a reason I can not see

You lack BASIC computing knowledge - 4 TPUS(the hardware Alpha used) are roughly equivalent to 2000+ standard processing units, even not taking into account ALL other accompanying factors that strongly disfavoured SF.

 

 

You are right in saying I have no knowledge of all that computer stuff. I am just some amateur programmer in HTML, CSS, and Java. You are still wrong though in saying that AlphaZero plays at 2300 on a normal computer. I know that a normal computer today has much more processing power than the best computer in 1996. So:

Better chess engine than Deep Blue + Better computer than Deep Blue = Better rating than Deep Blue.

I don't know what rating Deep Blue was, but it was WELL over 2300, so AlphaZero COULDNT play NEAR 2300.

Yes, I don't have much computer knowledge, but you don't have much common sense, and that's where your argument is flawed

If Kasparov was close to 2800 at the time, then Deep Blue played at at least the same level.

Alpha Zero played on ENORMOUS hardware, what's so difficult to understand?

On a single core, it will play around 2300, if ported.

Similarly, SF on a primitive device/phone is at least 500-600 elos weaker than SF on multiple cores.

If you don't understand that, there is not much point in talking...

Avatar of Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
1400136896 wrote:

Some computer can

Unfortunately, neither Houdini, Komodo or SF at this point.

Anyone having done new measurements?

Does latest development SF get closer?

No, no computer will EVER be able to find the move in which you beat StockFish with, cause you never BEAT StockFish, as you still have no proof that you can beat it. Your proof is not your measly CM-worthy rating, nor is it your books that get some attention by titled players. The players never hinted that your rating should be much higher than it is once. They simply said that it was a helpful, intuitive book. So stop saying that you beat StockFish, cause it is quite obvious to the sensible people that have been on this forum long enough

So you NEVER read the beginning of this thread with example games where I BEAT different top engines on this VERY forum, with people watching.

Why the comparison to Nimzovich and Kmoch then, made by Smerdon himself?

Hate it or not, the book is ground-breaking, which means I am ground-breaking too.

First of all, I read the first pages of the forum. I actually read the first 10 or so, every single post. And you did not beat StockFish in front of everyone's eyes. You posted a game claiming that it was you beating StockFish, and expected everyone to believe you with no proof. Get your facts straight, cause it's been a while since you've gotten one right, but you've still have fallen short of proving me wrong in weeks.

A person called Mcris or something matched me with his Houdini and Komodo and I managed to win.

It is ALL there, obviously, you are unable to read.

Avatar of Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:

Lyudmil, for you to say that you can beat Stockfish is for you to say that you are the best chess entity in the world, and when you give microscopic proof of this claim, you are simply just making a fool of yourself

OK, I will retranslate my claim: I have played the MOST chess games against SF of any man living.

Sounds better?

Thank you for saying probably the easiest claim to prove wrong. You don't know who is the 2nd most, and there is no record book for most games. I might be mistaken, and there is a leaderboard for this, but I highly doubt it. If you have no proof, then man, you are not even TRYING to convince anyone that you're right anymore, you're just spitting stuff out of your mouth

It's not my fault you are lazy to read.

It is all there.

How do you guess I started winning SF?

BY playing a LOT of games, much more than you can possibly imagine.

Experience makes perfect, but obviously you are unable to recognise this.

Why would you guess I am the ONLY person having published a book on beating SF, WITH legitimate traceable scores?

Pity that, instead of trying to learn something, you are obstructing again.

Take a random game, analyse it and, in case you have problems, I am ready to help.

Avatar of TheGElCOgecko
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
josiahpower wrote:

Following your logic, 90% of threads on Chess.com should be deleted.

At least, this thread HAS some USEFUL stuff other threads are lacking.

Do you really hate so much original content?

Btw., if you are in the dark and what to know more what high level chess with engines is all about, currently you can read 'Human versus Machine' for free on the Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Don't miss that occasion.

In the future, top engine chess will be more and more a reference as to the objectivity of the game.

Number 1 reason why am on this forum: To make sure people don't think there is tons of useful stuff on this forum. If there's one thing I hate, it's when people are fooled by people like you, claiming things with no proof, claiming that there is proof. Basically, a really stubborn person that will do anything to be right. No one should do such a thing except a child (and Trump, he does that half the time he talks lol) Yet you continue to do it. Why? Are you so desparate for attention as to claim what you are claiming? Well, you've got the attention. I doubt there is any other thread as active for such a long time as your thread.

Avatar of TheGElCOgecko
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
IAMBBW wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Since many here think I am weak and not worhty of writing good books,

above is a position from one of my games against Stockfish played on talkchess

forum in late 2014.

TC was 30 minutes per game, so close to analytical.

How many people will find the move with which I won against Stockfish?

It is obvious that ALPHA ZERO blind Stockfish

No news from Alpha for a veeeery looong time.

Have they given up.

Latest SF bashing them?

NO ONE CAN BEAT ALPHA ZERO MAN

Come on, we already discussed that - it RAN on 100 times stronger hardware and the training hardware costed 10 000 times more than SF hardware or so.

Alpha plays at 2300-2400, so any entity, mechanical or even better human playing stronger than that will certainly beat it.

The perfect player will come at 6000 elos or so so a lot of leeway for improvement and thrashing suboptimal engines.

Lyudmil, you don't know that. All anyone knows is that it has played as the best engine int he world, and would almost inevitably play slower on a regular computer. But you can't demote the best engine in the world to play at a measly 2300 when even Deep Blue could do better than that in 1996. You have absolutely NO evidence that it would play that low, you're just making stuff up for a reason I can not see

You lack BASIC computing knowledge - 4 TPUS(the hardware Alpha used) are roughly equivalent to 2000+ standard processing units, even not taking into account ALL other accompanying factors that strongly disfavoured SF.

 

 

You are right in saying I have no knowledge of all that computer stuff. I am just some amateur programmer in HTML, CSS, and Java. You are still wrong though in saying that AlphaZero plays at 2300 on a normal computer. I know that a normal computer today has much more processing power than the best computer in 1996. So:

Better chess engine than Deep Blue + Better computer than Deep Blue = Better rating than Deep Blue.

I don't know what rating Deep Blue was, but it was WELL over 2300, so AlphaZero COULDNT play NEAR 2300.

Yes, I don't have much computer knowledge, but you don't have much common sense, and that's where your argument is flawed

If Kasparov was close to 2800 at the time, then Deep Blue played at at least the same level.

Alpha Zero played on ENORMOUS hardware, what's so difficult to understand?

On a single core, it will play around 2300, if ported.

Similarly, SF on a primitive device/phone is at least 500-600 elos weaker than SF on multiple cores.

If you don't understand that, there is not much point in talking...

You basically just ignored everything I said, then said some stuff that just supported my point more than disprove

I guess I have to talk to you like I am talking to a 12 year-old, cause you can't understand anything else

StockFish > DeepBlue

for obvious reasons.....

You say that DeepBlue > 2800

Therefore, StockFish > 2800

is that so hard to understand? StockFish can't play at a 2300. How in the world did you come up with that? It has got to play significantly better than DeepBlue. You couldn't even beat DeepBlue, maybe tie it at the most. And don't say that you can, you still didn't post the game you claim to have posted earlier

Avatar of TheGElCOgecko
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
1400136896 wrote:

Some computer can

Unfortunately, neither Houdini, Komodo or SF at this point.

Anyone having done new measurements?

Does latest development SF get closer?

No, no computer will EVER be able to find the move in which you beat StockFish with, cause you never BEAT StockFish, as you still have no proof that you can beat it. Your proof is not your measly CM-worthy rating, nor is it your books that get some attention by titled players. The players never hinted that your rating should be much higher than it is once. They simply said that it was a helpful, intuitive book. So stop saying that you beat StockFish, cause it is quite obvious to the sensible people that have been on this forum long enough

So you NEVER read the beginning of this thread with example games where I BEAT different top engines on this VERY forum, with people watching.

Why the comparison to Nimzovich and Kmoch then, made by Smerdon himself?

Hate it or not, the book is ground-breaking, which means I am ground-breaking too.

First of all, I read the first pages of the forum. I actually read the first 10 or so, every single post. And you did not beat StockFish in front of everyone's eyes. You posted a game claiming that it was you beating StockFish, and expected everyone to believe you with no proof. Get your facts straight, cause it's been a while since you've gotten one right, but you've still have fallen short of proving me wrong in weeks.

A person called Mcris or something matched me with his Houdini and Komodo and I managed to win.

It is ALL there, obviously, you are unable to read.

so, you still want to keep claiming stuff you can't prove? I read, but I see no proof. I read, you just don't think.

Avatar of TheGElCOgecko
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
stewardjandstewardj wrote:

Lyudmil, for you to say that you can beat Stockfish is for you to say that you are the best chess entity in the world, and when you give microscopic proof of this claim, you are simply just making a fool of yourself

OK, I will retranslate my claim: I have played the MOST chess games against SF of any man living.

Sounds better?

Thank you for saying probably the easiest claim to prove wrong. You don't know who is the 2nd most, and there is no record book for most games. I might be mistaken, and there is a leaderboard for this, but I highly doubt it. If you have no proof, then man, you are not even TRYING to convince anyone that you're right anymore, you're just spitting stuff out of your mouth

It's not my fault you are lazy to read.

It's not my fault you are unable to understand what you read, for I have countered the majority of the stuff you post that I read, yet you have still failed to. I back you up into a corner, and you pretend there is no corner

It is all there.

Yes, it is all there, but there is no proof that it is true

How do you guess I started winning SF?

Guess how no one believes that you beat SF?

BY playing a LOT of games, much more than you can possibly imagine.

Look at above remark

Experience makes perfect, but obviously you are unable to recognise this.

No experience can make you "perfect." Unless you're talking about tic-tac-toe or something.

Why would you guess I am the ONLY person having published a book on beating SF, WITH legitimate traceable scores?

Why in the world is there not some kind of proof, I have Googled your name for over an hour to no avail of finding a single article not written by you that you have beat StockFish. You have no proof, you refuse to post any legit sources after I have asked multiple times of it

Pity that, instead of trying to learn something, you are obstructing again.

Said the person that decides to ignore everything I say cause they don't want to admit they are wrong

Take a random game, analyse it and, in case you have problems, I am ready to help.

Yes, the only thing you have said right. Because I acknoledge the proof that while I have much more logic than you, you are much better than me at chess. I acknoledge this proof. You have a 2300 rating, and unless your brain has rapidly deteriorated, which probably hasn't considering the books you've published, you are still much better than me. Unlike you, I accept the facts. You however don't, and you want to be the best, so you claim to be the best, claiming to reach feats that are impossible. You and Trump have a lot in common, and thats not a good thing. And yes, I am getting political. I don't care if this forum closes anymore.

Avatar of Ryanmp99

This forum has gotten completely out of hand and unrelated to the topic. I will say that I looked through the position and some of the lines described with SF10dev, and it appears the op is telling the truth in that the position is won for white. There are many variations in which the evaluation suddenly flips to put white at a completely winning number. In addition, the position is locked and white’s pieces have access to the king while black’s are cut off. This bears a strong resemblance to AlphaZero’s games, in which Stockfish’s pieces were cut off from the action and he was eventually locked down and crushed. Long story short, I believe him when he says the position is winning, but it seems so utterly complex, with mates in several dozen moves (holy crap!) that I am skeptical he found this in a live game with no engine assistance. 

Avatar of lfPatriotGames
Ryanmp99 wrote:

This forum has gotten completely out of hand and unrelated to the topic. I will say that I looked through the position and some of the lines described with SF10dev, and it appears the op is telling the truth in that the position is won for white. There are many variations in which the evaluation suddenly flips to put white at a completely winning number. In addition, the position is locked and white’s pieces have access to the king while black’s are cut off. This bears a strong resemblance to AlphaZero’s games, in which Stockfish’s pieces were cut off from the action and he was eventually locked down and crushed. Long story short, I believe him when he says the position is winning, but it seems so utterly complex, with mates in several dozen moves (holy crap!) that I am skeptical he found this in a live game with no engine assistance. 

That's sort  of the whole point. For people who want to use a computer, to play another computer, his book is probably very valuable. From what people are saying, he explains pretty well what happens when computers play. But almost everyone is skeptical that HE is actually playing and beating these computers. Which is why there is this disagreement over his claims about his rating and ability. For the people who plan on playing against computers, or people who think like computers, his book is probably very helpful. But from what some reviewers have said, it's not of much value for people who play other people.

Avatar of Carbon6
Ryanmp99 wrote:

This forum has gotten completely out of hand and unrelated to the topic. I will say that I looked through the position and some of the lines described with SF10dev, and it appears the op is telling the truth in that the position is won for white. There are many variations in which the evaluation suddenly flips to put white at a completely winning number. In addition, the position is locked and white’s pieces have access to the king while black’s are cut off. This bears a strong resemblance to AlphaZero’s games, in which Stockfish’s pieces were cut off from the action and he was eventually locked down and crushed. Long story short, I believe him when he says the position is winning, but it seems so utterly complex, with mates in several dozen moves (holy crap!) that I am skeptical he found this in a live game with no engine assistance. 

So in your opinion is the book good or bad? And why do you conflictingly say " I believe him when he says the position is winning" and "I am skeptical" in the same sentence?

Avatar of ScootaChess

Everyone knows stockfish is blind. It has no eyes

Avatar of Ryanmp99
ChessSD67 wrote:
Ryanmp99 wrote:

This forum has gotten completely out of hand and unrelated to the topic. I will say that I looked through the position and some of the lines described with SF10dev, and it appears the op is telling the truth in that the position is won for white. There are many variations in which the evaluation suddenly flips to put white at a completely winning number. In addition, the position is locked and white’s pieces have access to the king while black’s are cut off. This bears a strong resemblance to AlphaZero’s games, in which Stockfish’s pieces were cut off from the action and he was eventually locked down and crushed. Long story short, I believe him when he says the position is winning, but it seems so utterly complex, with mates in several dozen moves (holy crap!) that I am skeptical he found this in a live game with no engine assistance. 

So in your opinion is the book good or bad? And why do you conflictingly say " I believe him when he says the position is winning" and "I am skeptical" in the same sentence?

Clearly you didn’t even remotely comprehend what I said, but I won’t repeat myself; say something once, why say it again?

And I have no opinion of the book since I haven’t read it.

Avatar of Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
Ryanmp99 wrote:

This forum has gotten completely out of hand and unrelated to the topic. I will say that I looked through the position and some of the lines described with SF10dev, and it appears the op is telling the truth in that the position is won for white. There are many variations in which the evaluation suddenly flips to put white at a completely winning number. In addition, the position is locked and white’s pieces have access to the king while black’s are cut off. This bears a strong resemblance to AlphaZero’s games, in which Stockfish’s pieces were cut off from the action and he was eventually locked down and crushed. Long story short, I believe him when he says the position is winning, but it seems so utterly complex, with mates in several dozen moves (holy crap!) that I am skeptical he found this in a live game with no engine assistance. 

Now, this is a good post and to-the-point.

Everyone who takes the effort to investigate with SF will see I am telling the truth.

Of course, I found it myself - who else, if top engines STILL don't see it?

Now, this was easy as I have played thousand similar games crushing SF.

My other book, "The Secret of Chess", has specific terms for rook on an edge(h-file) file attacking the enemy king shelter, pointed chain(the d4-e5-f6 pawns later on) as well as twice backward shelter pawn(the f7 black pawn restricted by the white e5 and g5 pawns).

Look carefully at this TOC: https://www.amazon.com/Secret-Chess-Lyudmil-Tsvetkov/dp/1522041400#reader_1522041400

Where I have taken these orginal terms from?

From the countless PRACTICAL games I have played against SF, of course!

Avatar of Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Now, concerning the actual game: I did post links from the encounter LIVE on a forum, either here or on the Secret of Chess forum; they should be still there, just too busy now to repost.

Please, take a look.

Avatar of Lyudmil_Tsvetkov
stewardjandstewardj wrote:
Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:
josiahpower wrote:

Following your logic, 90% of threads on Chess.com should be deleted.

At least, this thread HAS some USEFUL stuff other threads are lacking.

Do you really hate so much original content?

Btw., if you are in the dark and what to know more what high level chess with engines is all about, currently you can read 'Human versus Machine' for free on the Kindle: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Machine-Stockfish-Komodo-ebook/dp/B0768G8R2C/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Don't miss that occasion.

In the future, top engine chess will be more and more a reference as to the objectivity of the game.

Number 1 reason why am on this forum: To make sure people don't think there is tons of useful stuff on this forum. If there's one thing I hate, it's when people are fooled by people like you, claiming things with no proof, claiming that there is proof. Basically, a really stubborn person that will do anything to be right. No one should do such a thing except a child (and Trump, he does that half the time he talks lol) Yet you continue to do it. Why? Are you so desparate for attention as to claim what you are claiming? Well, you've got the attention. I doubt there is any other thread as active for such a long time as your thread.

I am even not reading what you are writing anymore.

Too busy, but one way or another, you write complete nonsense.

As if you have not read(read, not clicked) a single post here and not replayed a single game...

Which might actually be the pure truth...

Avatar of kineticpower

Lol

Avatar of Guest3475170024
Please Sign Up to comment.

If you need help, please contact our Help and Support team.