The Secret of Chess - Chess Forums - Page 157

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3121

At least, I am able to win some handicaps from time to time.

Christopher_Parsons

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3122

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

I should say that I have bigger problems with black, if I answer 1. d4 with 1.. .d5, both in the QGD and the Stonewall Dutch, but why should one play inferior lines?

To tell you the truth, it is for the first time that having the black pieces is really difficult against SF.

The engine has improved and one must be very careful with a tempo less.

With white, it is much easier.

So that, having white is a substantial advantage at this stage of our competition with SF.

The best I have done against an engine with black is against the Chess Free app engine, set at level 8 in casual. It is rated at 1680 ELO. I find equalizing against an engine with black or even gaining the initiative sometimes, next to impossible. By the way, the level 12 setting is only 2100.

Psychamok

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3123

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

torrubirubi wrote:

What do you thing about the Hyper Accelerated Dragon? It has the fianchettoed bishop on the kingside, which you see as positive, but it has to fight against the Marockzy bind, that you see as negative.

No Maroczy Bind in the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon.

The best response should be building a strong center with c2-c3 and d2-d4, to countervail the fianchettoed bishop.

That is how Fischer and other top players handled it, and that indeed makes very much sense.

Each and every position is a set of a range of available evaluation factors.

When the major terms are split about equal, it will be the smaller ones that will decide who is actually better.

It would be very difficult for any position to be fully equal, up to a centipawn, so always one side has the advantage, you need a very particular position however to judge it.

In what games does Bobby Fischer play c3 and d4 against the hyper accelerated dragon? Here are a few that can be found and he played 3. d4 in them all.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044084

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044140

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044226

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3124

For similar games, but of much higher quality and much more interesting, check 'Human versus Machine': https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/human-versus-machine.html

Psitional and tactical puzzles are available here: https://www.expert-chess-strategies.com/learning-chess-for-advanced-chess-players.html

For free excerpts on 'The Secret of Chess', visit www.secretofchess.com

chesster3145

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3125

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

Pulpofeira wrote:

But after d4, c4 can follow, and what do you have? Pressure.

I enjoy the Slav/Semi-Slav against 1. d4, I used to find it as pressure, until I learned that system. I have also considered learning some of the Indian systems that can be played against it ( 1.d4 ), but similarly to my theory behind 1. e4 over 1. d4, I find relegating a bishop to a mostly defensive position, that is a sitting target for a forced trade, I stay away from those systems intentionally.

I don't understand. Can you give an example of "relegating a bishop to a mostly defensive position, that is a sitting target for a forced trade"?

chesster3145

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3126

EzioAuditore96 wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

torrubirubi wrote:

What do you thing about the Hyper Accelerated Dragon? It has the fianchettoed bishop on the kingside, which you see as positive, but it has to fight against the Marockzy bind, that you see as negative.

No Maroczy Bind in the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon.

The best response should be building a strong center with c2-c3 and d2-d4, to countervail the fianchettoed bishop.

That is how Fischer and other top players handled it, and that indeed makes very much sense.

Each and every position is a set of a range of available evaluation factors.

When the major terms are split about equal, it will be the smaller ones that will decide who is actually better.

It would be very difficult for any position to be fully equal, up to a centipawn, so always one side has the advantage, you need a very particular position however to judge it.

In what games does Bobby Fischer play c3 and d4 against the hyper accelerated dragon? Here are a few that can be found and he played 3. d4 in them all.

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044084

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044140

http://www.chessgames.com/perl/chessgame?gid=1044226

LT is talking nonsense again... database.chessbase.com gives 4,625 games with 3. d4 to 1,327 games with 3. c3.

chesster3145

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3127

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

@Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Here is the report that I promised. I apologize for the size and length of it, and how long it took me to compile, but I wanted it to be thorough. I also wanted to do my best to present an apologetic case in advance to, quell potential arguments. Some of it was a pain staking process. I hope you like it.

This is an E.L.O. analysis:

This is a series of engine analyses that are done with several different engines, looking for a match to a particular engine and were also an attempt to establish the level of play, in comparison to what GM's do over the board.

* note the lack of losing positions by either participant *

Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Stockfish 7 x 64 @ 20 plies

Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 17/34; 50.00% (std error 8.57)
T2: 20/31; 64.52% (std error 8.59)
T3: 23/29; 79.31% (std error 7.52)
T4: 23/28; 82.14% (std error 7.24)
T5: 19/24; 79.17% (std error 8.29)
=0 CP loss: 29/42; 69.05% (std error 7.13)
>0 CP loss: 13/42; 30.95% (std error 7.13)
>10 CP loss: 6/42; 14.29% (std error 5.40)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 2.64, std deviation 5.36

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 41
T1: 16/39; 41.03% (std error 7.88)
T2: 23/36; 63.89% (std error 8.01)
T3: 27/35; 77.14% (std error 7.10)
T4: 27/33; 81.82% (std error 6.71)
T5: 29/32; 90.63% (std error 5.15)
=0 CP loss: 28/41; 68.29% (std error 7.27)
>0 CP loss: 13/41; 31.71% (std error 7.27)
>10 CP loss: 4/41; 9.76% (std error 4.63)
>25 CP loss: 3/41; 7.32% (std error 4.07)
>50 CP loss: 3/41; 7.32% (std error 4.07)
>100 CP loss: 0/41; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/41; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/41; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 5.85, std deviation 16.43

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Stockfish 8 x 64 @ 20 plies

Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 15
T1: 4/14; 28.57% (std error 12.07)
T2: 7/12; 58.33% (std error 14.23)
T3: 7/11; 63.64% (std error 14.50)
T4: 5/8; 62.50% (std error 17.12)
T5: 5/7; 71.43% (std error 17.07)
=0 CP loss: 7/15; 46.67% (std error 12.88)
>0 CP loss: 8/15; 53.33% (std error 12.88)
>10 CP loss: 2/15; 13.33% (std error 8.78)
>25 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/15; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 3.93, std deviation 4.97

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 10
T1: 5/9; 55.56% (std error 16.56)
T2: 6/8; 75.00% (std error 15.31)
T3: 7/8; 87.50% (std error 11.69)
T4: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)
T5: 5/6; 83.33% (std error 15.21)
=0 CP loss: 7/10; 70.00% (std error 14.49)
>0 CP loss: 3/10; 30.00% (std error 14.49)
>10 CP loss: 1/10; 10.00% (std error 9.49)
>25 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/10; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 2.30, std deviation 4.10

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Stockfish 9 x 64

Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 11/35; 31.43% (std error 7.85)
T2: 20/33; 60.61% (std error 8.51)
T3: 22/30; 73.33% (std error 8.07)
T4: 20/26; 76.92% (std error 8.26)
T5: 17/21; 80.95% (std error 8.57)
=0 CP loss: 25/42; 59.52% (std error 7.57)
>0 CP loss: 17/42; 40.48% (std error 7.57)
>10 CP loss: 6/42; 14.29% (std error 5.40)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 3.50, std deviation 5.28

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 13/38; 34.21% (std error 7.70)
T2: 20/36; 55.56% (std error 8.28)
T3: 22/34; 64.71% (std error 8.20)
T4: 25/32; 78.13% (std error 7.31)
T5: 28/32; 87.50% (std error 5.85)
=0 CP loss: 26/42; 61.90% (std error 7.49)
>0 CP loss: 16/42; 38.10% (std error 7.49)
>10 CP loss: 2/42; 4.76% (std error 3.29)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 2.52, std deviation 4.48

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

Analysis by PGN Spy: according to Komodo 9.02 x 64

Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 18/36; 50.00% (std error 8.33)
T2: 14/24; 58.33% (std error 10.06)
T3: 9/18; 50.00% (std error 11.79)
T4: 8/14; 57.14% (std error 13.23)
T5: 7/9; 77.78% (std error 13.86)
=0 CP loss: 26/42; 61.90% (std error 7.49)
>0 CP loss: 16/42; 38.10% (std error 7.49)
>10 CP loss: 8/42; 19.05% (std error 6.06)
>25 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>50 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 4.62, std deviation 6.83

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT, 1 games

UNDECIDED POSITIONS
Positions: 42
T1: 13/37; 35.14% (std error 7.85)
T2: 19/27; 70.37% (std error 8.79)
T3: 15/20; 75.00% (std error 9.68)
T4: 13/16; 81.25% (std error 9.76)
T5: 10/13; 76.92% (std error 11.69)
=0 CP loss: 23/42; 54.76% (std error 7.68)
>0 CP loss: 19/42; 45.24% (std error 7.68)
>10 CP loss: 9/42; 21.43% (std error 6.33)
>25 CP loss: 4/42; 9.52% (std error 4.53)
>50 CP loss: 2/42; 4.76% (std error 3.29)
>100 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>200 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
>500 CP loss: 0/42; 0.00% (std error 0.00)
CP loss mean 7.76, std deviation 14.96

LOSING POSITIONS
Positions: 0

This is a report hand compiled from the original PGN, to show the move times. It was my inention to reveal whether or not Lyudmil may have used another engine or the same one playing against itself, and altered the PGN. The analysis clearly shows that a human played from a plan, against an engine. There is a clear pattern of aknown opening played by a human. There is also a long pause at key junctures, just as the opening ends and a few times during the middle and end games. This is consistant with a human thinking and the times don't show any sort of mechnical pattern. The greatest level of inconsistant move times occurs during the middle, which typically it should. The opening and end games are often more evident to a human.

Here is that report:

Event - Blitz 2m+1s
Site - Microsoft
Date - 2018.02.05
White - Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner
Black - Stockfish 9 64 POPCNT
Result - 1/2-1/2
ECO - C01
PlyCount - 104
EventDate - 2018.??.??
TimeControl - 120+1

CurrentPosition ""rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - 0 1

512MB, OWNER-PC

White moves Black Moves Evaluation Score/Depth
1.e4 - Move time = 0 sec 1...e6 - Move time = 9 sec 0.20/21
2.d4 - Move time = 2 sec 2...d5 - Move time = 0 sec 0.14/21
3.exd5 - Move time = 2 sec 3...exd5 - Move time = 1 sec 0.02/18
4.Nf3 - Move time = 2 sec 4...Nf6 - Move time = 8 sec -0.05/23
5.Bd3 - Move time = 2 sec 5...Bd6 - Move time = 4 sec -0.03/23
6.O-O,- Move time = 2 sec 6...O-O - Move time = 0 sec -0.06/21
7.Bg5 - Move time = 2 sec 7...h6 - Move time = 1 -0.15/17
8.Bh4 - Move time = 2 sec 8...c6 - Move time = 10 -0.13/23
9.Nbd2 - Move time = 4 sec 9...Bg4 - Move time = 0 0.00/23
10.c3 - Move time = 0 10...Nbd7 - Move time = 2 -0.18/20
11.Qc2 - Move time = 2 11...Qc7 - Move time = 3 -0.31/21
12.Bg3 - Move time = 2 12...Bxg3 - Move time = 2 -0.09/20
13.hxg3 - Move time = 1 13...Rfe8 - Move time = 8 0.00/23
14.Rfe1 - Move time = 2 14...Qb6 - Move time = 2 0.00/23
15.Qb3 - Move time = 8 15...g6 - Move time = 2 -0.02/22
16.Rxe8+ - Move time = 0 16...Rxe8 - Move time = 3 -0.11/26
17.Re1 - Move time = 1 17...Qxb3 - Move time = 3 -0.33/25
18.Rxe8+ - Move time = 4 18...Nxe8 - Move time = 2 -0.30/23
19.axb3 - Move time = 5 19...a5 - Move time = 5 -0.44/23
20.Nh2 - Move = 0 20...Be6 - Move time = 2 -0.49/23
21.Nhf1 - Move = 2 21...Kf8 - Move time = 7 -0.42/27
22.Ne3 - Move time = 2 22...h5 - Move time = 0 -0.41/27
23.Nc2 - Move time = 4 23...Nd6 - Move time = 2 -0.50/21
24.b4 - Move time = 6 24...a4 - Move time = 1 -0.69/24
25.Na3 - Move time = 0 25...b5 - Move time = 3 -0.79/25
26.Kf1 - Move time = 4 26...Kg7 - Move time = 0 -0.88/30
27.Ke2 - Move time = 5 27...Bg4+ - Move time = 7 -0.84/27
28.Ke1 - Move time = 3 28...Bf5 - Move time = 3 -0.80/29
29.Be2 - Move time = 0 29...Kh6 - Move time = 5 -0.95/27
30.Kd1 - Move time = 5 30...Be4 - Move time = 0 -0.91/28
31.f3 - Move time = 0 31...Bf5 - Move time = 4 -0.81/25
32.Nc2 - Move time = 3 32...g5 - Move time = 2 -0.88/27
33.Ne3 - Move time = 4 33...Nf8 - Move time = 10 -0.64/29
34.g4 - Move time = 0 34...hxg4 - Move time = 3 0.68/28
35.Nxg4+ - Move time = 1 35...Bxg4 - Move time = 1 -0.74/29
36.fxg4 - Move time = 1 36...Ng6 - Move time = 2 -0.64/30
37.g3 - Move time = 2 37...Ne7 - Move time = 2 -0.78/28
38.Bf3 - Move time = 5 38...Ng8 - Move time = 2 -0.82/31
39.Ke2 - Move time = 3 39...Nf6 - Move time = 0 -0.78/34
40.Ke3 - Move time = 0 40...Kg7 - Move time = 2 -0.83/34
41.Kd3 - Move time = 3 41...Kf8 - Move time = 3 -1.04/36
42.Ke3 - Move time = 1 42...Ke7 - Move time = 3 -0.85/35
43.Kd3 - Move time = 1 43...Ke6 - Move time = 1 -0.84/35
44.Ke3 - Move time = 1 44...Nc8 - Move time = 1 -0.84/37
45.Kd3 - Move time = 4 45...Nd6 - Move time = 3 -0.84/38
46.Ke3 - Move time = 2 46...Kd7 - Move time = 1 -0.84/39
47.Kd3 - Move time = 1 47...Ke7 - Move time = 2 -0.84/39
48.Ke3 - Move time = 1 48...Ke6 - Move time = 1 -0.84/39
49.Kd3 - Move time = 1 49...Nc8 - Move time = 1 -0.85/37
50.Ke3 - Move time = 1 50...Ne7 - Move time = 2 -0.84/35
51.Kd3 - Move time = 1 51...Nc8 - Move time = 0 -0.84/38
52.Ke3 - Move time = 1 52...Nd6 - Move time = 2 -0.84/38

But it actually proves LT wrong, not right. The Stockfish in the game is shown to be fake: just 2700 Elo and engine correlation typical of a super GM.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3128

Well, SF 9 is choosing 3. c3, just as Fischer.

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3129

Anyone having problems with posting fens, the software ALWAYS returns the starting position for me, no matter what I post?

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3130

Well, as you see, SF chooses c3, but I don't think it plays it right after that.

Psychamok

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3131

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Well, SF 9 is choosing 3. c3, just as Fischer.

Just as Fischer? Sorry but Fischer played 3. d4 in games I found which I have already linked, so unless you can prove that by finding ones with 3. c3 against the hyper accelerated dragon, then that's just not correct.

Psychamok

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3132

BobbyTalparov wrote:

EzioAuditore96 wrote:

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

Well, SF 9 is choosing 3. c3, just as Fischer.

Just as Fischer? Sorry but Fischer played 3. d4 in games I found which I have already linked, so unless you can prove that by finding ones with 3. c3 against the hyper accelerated dragon, then that's just not correct.

Fischer's response to all Dragon variations was the same for most of his career. Anyone who has read "My 60 Memorable Games" knows the attack well (and it does not involve 3. c3 - Fischer may have played the Alapin in a simul somewhere, but it was not his standard weapon against any form of the Dragon).

Yeah, I've read it. Currently reading through it again.

Christopher_Parsons

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3133

chesster3145 wrote:

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

But it actually proves LT wrong, not right. The Stockfish in the game is shown to be fake: just 2700 Elo and engine correlation typical of a super GM.

There are some things you aren't taking into to consideration. They are as follows:

1) The first is that the time control and hardware for the determining of Stockfish 8's ELO, exceed that of the Lyudmil's games. Here is a picture. Note the time control...

2) You are comparing two different versions of Stockfish. Lyudmil is playing Stockfish 9 x 64 Popcount. The application that I used for the analysis showing the ELO is Stockfish 8 ARM. That is the android version. It runs on different hardware and has a lower ELO. I contacted the applications creater to enquire about this also. Here is the email correspondence. Look at the dates.

In case you didn't follow what he meant, he used the engine matches and correlated them to the ELO of the moves in a large database. It uses a different system, but a more accurate one for determining ELO. He was able to use it as a measuring stick to find the ELO of his application.

Here is a game played by two high level GM's...

I have studied the results of games and found that the higher the ELO rating that is given, the more accurate that it is. One proof of this is that the moves can be verified by database moves, as the programmer stated in the email and also that the nature of the scale used to measure the ELO allows for greater variance at lower ELOs. In other words, you might find 5 or 6 moves in a positions that can get you an 1800 ELO, but very few moves per position to get you a GM level ELO rating. TO achieve that rating, you are playing accurate chess.

* 300% mangification using the hotkey control and + are required to read the time control and other vital information.

Christopher_Parsons

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3134

chesster3145 wrote:

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

Pulpofeira wrote:

But after d4, c4 can follow, and what do you have? Pressure.

I enjoy the Slav/Semi-Slav against 1. d4, I used to find it as pressure, until I learned that system. I have also considered learning some of the Indian systems that can be played against it ( 1.d4 ), but similarly to my theory behind 1. e4 over 1. d4, I find relegating a bishop to a mostly defensive position, that is a sitting target for a forced trade, I stay away from those systems intentionally.

I don't understand. Can you give an example of "relegating a bishop to a mostly defensive position, that is a sitting target for a forced trade"?

First of all, I have to ask why are you, someone rated 200 points higher than me asking this ? Either you think you will get me to make some sort of idiotic statement, or you are pretending to be a near expert player with that 1732 rating of yours.

Does a bishop influence more of the board on g2 or on either of the central sqaures e4 or d5 ? I don't even need Lyudmil's book to tell me that, but yet it states the same thing in the book, if you read it and understand it. If you fianchetto the bishop and castle behind it, before moving it out into the center, where it is more likely to get displaced from it's strong diagonal, or forced into a trade, leaves you with a weakness of the squares around your king. I am of the mindset that I am not going to limit one of my bishops to a more defensive role. You also make it a target to be forced into a trade by your opponent's bishop sooner or later. It might even be the worse of his two bishops, blocked in by his central pawns and yours. If he can get your bishop for his, we are talking a 3.0 for a 5.0 in dynamic evaluation, instead of a 3 for 3 even swap. I didn't learn this from Lyudmil's book either. I learned this watching videos of Kingcrusher (on Youtube) giving commentary on GM games. A few really good ones were Bobby Fischer games. He mentioned the evaluation scores. If you read Lyudmil's book, it will tell you that too. Even if a guy isn't perfectly understanding how to tear down what you have built, advantage is often gained a bit at a time.

Having said all of this, those types of lines are playable, especially for really strong players, but why complicate things, if you don't have to for yourself ? You are supposed to be doing that for your opponent.

torrubirubi

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3135

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

torrubirubi wrote:

In which page did you write it? Or at least chapter? In the next edition you could include a register, making easy to find things.

There is an index of terms.

The I-KID mainly relies on the e5 and c5 unbackwarded pawns.

I already have explained that a couple of times.

Thanks. Yes, I know that you have an alphabetic list of terms at the end of your book, but this is not a register. Per definition, a register should show the pages where you will find the terms, otherwise it is like a phone book with names but without the phone numbers. Or are the page numbers missing only in my copies?

torrubirubi

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3136

hitthepin wrote:

Does anyone else have problems with the games loading?

I have in my iPad mini, but in the computer no problem.

torrubirubi

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3137

[COMMENT DELETED]

torrubirubi

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3138

Lyudmil_Tsvetkov wrote:

torrubirubi wrote:

What do you thing about the Hyper Accelerated Dragon? It has the fianchettoed bishop on the kingside, which you see as positive, but it has to fight against the Marockzy bind, that you see as negative.

No Maroczy Bind in the Hyper-Accelerated Dragon.

The best response should be building a strong center with c2-c3 and d2-d4, to countervail the fianchettoed bishop.

That is how Fischer and other top players handled it, and that indeed makes very much sense.

Each and every position is a set of a range of available evaluation factors.

When the major terms are split about equal, it will be the smaller ones that will decide who is actually better.

It would be very difficult for any position to be fully equal, up to a centipawn, so always one side has the advantage, you need a very particular position however to judge it.

I understand now, you mean that white should play the Alapin and not the Maroczy Bind against the Hyper Accelerated Dragon. Well, I have the feeling that white gives a lot of initiative playing c3 and d4, and allows black to play a little bit like white in this line. But I am still learning this Defence, and I have still to learn these lines.

Christopher_Parsons

Feb 10, 2018

0

#3139

chesster3145 wrote:

Christopher_Parsons wrote:

See report on previous page of thread...

But it actually proves LT wrong, not right. The Stockfish in the game is shown to be fake: just 2700 Elo and engine correlation typical of a super GM.

You make a good point about Lyudmil posting some impressive numbers, comparable to a strong IM on up to a super GM, depending upon which engine you prefer the analysis of, but there is something you are missing.

It is next to impossible to play the moves of any engine against Stockfish 9 x 64, even at a blitz time control and beat it. There are only 3 or maybe 4 engines, that are readily available, capable of doing that with any consistency. Had Lyudmil used one, he would have had to play it's best move every time to have any chance and every single move it played would be a top 3 move to the strongest of those engines, in the analyses. If not, t-4 of 100% then.

Lyudmil would have had to set up a bot, to keep his numbers down and it likely wouldn't be able to beat Stockfish 9 x 64 at all, by sacrificing precious centipawns, to keep his t-scores low enough to not match an engine like a blatant cheater would. What we see is an extremely strong player, who understands engine patterns and how to take advantage of their blind spots. You don't see a guy picking his moves from a list to keep t-stats down, or his move times would suffer and he would lose. He wouldn't be able to program a bot that helps him, or it's move times would be more mechanical and it probably couldn't beat Stockfish 9 x 64, by sacrificing precious centipawns, in order to keep t-stats down anyway.

Pick a new theory, all of your old ones are busted....

He is Magnus Carlsen, trolling out of boredom...lol.....not

prusswan

Feb 11, 2018

0

#3140

Pgn files are no more than regular text files.. anything including timestamps can be modified at will. Takebacks are not recorded either.