llamonade the very best players Do take into serious consideration engine opening evaluations--even with an advantage of only 0.30, Don't try to limit in words how the very strongest players play chess or evaluate different positions.
True or False Chess is a Draw with Best Play from Both Sides
Sort:
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2624
Of course all players use engines to prepare.
But you're the one limiting them because it's a little more complicated than going off the numerical value. Like you said... practical considerations.
llamonade2 wrote:
… I was talking about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of engines. ...
How many engines are there?
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2627
Saying A0 playes better openings than SF is rather dull because SF doesn't play opening that well in first place...
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2629
It's actually pretty nice, I use it all the time, I don't know why people do it the longer way.
Another nice one is when you have e to the power of all sorts of garbage, you can write exp(insert all sorts of garbage here).
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2630
llamonade2 escribió:
It's actually pretty nice, I use it all the time, I don't know why people do it the longer way.
Another nice one is when you have e to the power of all sorts of garbage, you can write exp(insert all sorts of garbage here).
exp is really nice when you have all sorts of garbage, otherwise, I prefer e^x. For scientific notation it's gross because e already means something else in maths and you do not denote the exponent operator, that would not be an issue if it was the only operation that was written as such but alas we have product.
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2631
I don't know, I guess for the reasons you said in books I prefer to see it written out like 3.23 x 10^6
But if I'm just scribbling on paper, where usually I have some fraction where lots of that stuff is getting crossed out anyway, I prefer the shorter way.
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2632
The paper sheet is the mathematicians laboratory or so does a teacher of mine stated 
Prometheus Alpha Zero seems to play better openings than any human or any other chess engine. Am sure the strong players are learning from those openings.
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2634
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Ziryab escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Ziryab escribió:
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
Ziryab escribió:
@KibiDangoman The word you are looking for is blunder.
Don't rely too heavily on engine analysis. There are still positions that Stockfish gets wrong, or does not get right fast enough.
For instance, I played Black against Stockfish from this position last week. It took some time before the initial evaluation of +2.00 gave way to +0.50, and several moves before it recognized the position as 0.00.
What computer are you using? Even the slow chess.com Stockfish 10 shows ~1.10 immediately and drops to 0.8 in about 3 seconds, less than a minute later and it evaluates 0.36. This is all without TBs.
I don’t recall. It may have been my iPad. The point, of course, is that 0.36 is inaccurate. The position is a dead draw with correct play. 0.00 would be accurate.
Technically, 0.36 is about a third of a pawn of an advantage, such advantage in virtually any endgame is meaningless.
When the computer sees a clear draw, the numbers are 0.00. That 0.36 is equal is another matter. In the diagram that I posted, the draw is clear, simple, and undeniable. Nonetheless, the engine running sans tablebases takes more than five seconds to reach that conclusion.
My point—simple and clear—don’t put all your stock in engine analysis. It will retard your chess development.
I’m done arguing this point with people who understand neither chess nor chess engines.
0.36 is literally 36 centipawns in an open position, what that means to you is not my concern but it's well known one pawn of advantage in rook endgames is most of the times irrelevant let alone a third of a pawn lol.
You are correct. Even +2.50 is many endgames is irrelevant. That reinforces my point that engines can be horribly wrong. Engines are much stronger than they were when fans around the world could not understand why a Leko — Kramnik game was drawn when their engines said one side was +2.50. The average player with some endgame knowledge, however, could see that the only ooint of entry for either player was the h-file and both kings could get there and stay there.
0.36 in a technical draw in an endgame means the computer does not see the technique fully, but might suspect it.
Go back to the position I posted and give me one rational reason for even 0.01, instead of 0.00.
To Stockfish’s credit, it sees 0.36 without tablebases on my computer, while Hiarcs with TBs up to five pieces (there are six on the board) sits at +3.00+ for well over a minute.
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2635
White has a more advanced passed pawn and has it's rook behind it, this is what I meant by "advantage" in a drawn position, in most cases such advantage (advantage in a drawn position) is irrelevant in others not so much.
Question, should computers evaluate the opening position as 0.00?
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2636
Prometheus_Fuschs wrote:
White has a more advanced passed pawn and has it's rook behind it, this is what I meant by "advantage" in a drawn position, in most cases such advantage (advantage in a drawn position) is irrelevant in others not so much.
Question, should computers evaluate the opening position as 0.00?
Yes. That’s likely what Stockfish sees to justify 0.36. However, the position is easily drawn, and Stockfish should see it as zero.
In answer to your second question, no. Although hypothetically equal, that differs substantially from technically drawn. Also, while there is broad agreement among chess players that chess is a draw with best play, actual practice at all levels reveals that problems can be posed and even computers will fail often.
Yes, the answer to the main question in this forum is "True, chess is a draw with best play from both sides."
However there are practical considerations for we humans in playing chess and I would always love to have a position where strong computers gives 0.36 as an advantage. My experience is I do well against masters and grand masters with such an advantage.
Mar 16, 2020
0
#2638
The answer remains hypothetical. The simplest test of the proposition is for the claimant to attempt to force a draw in practical play. No one has found an irrefutable method for doing so. Hence, the qualifier “with best play” is invoked to account for the failure. However, Best play remains hazily defined from the starting position.
There is good reason to believe that chess is a draw with best play, but the truth of the hypothesis remains speculative.
Ziryab wrote:
The answer remains hypothetical. The simplest test of the proposition is for the claimant to attempt to force a draw in practical play. No one has found an irrefutable method for doing so. Hence, the qualifier “with best play” is invoked to account for the failure. However, Best play remains hazily defined from the starting position.
There is good reason to believe that chess is a draw with best play, but the truth of the hypothesis remains speculative.
I probably wouldn't use the term hazily. I would probably say foggy, or at least cloudy. Don't mean to rain on Ponzs parade, but I think term "best play" does indeed need more sunshine.
Oh my apologies. I should have clarified.
I was talking about 99.99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999% of engines.
And in general any setup that costs under a million dollars.