Contemptuous

[overlord]

[pgn][Event "Blitz 5m"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.12.18"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kvicala, Miroslav"]
[Black "Stockfish DD 64 SSE4.2 (contem"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[TimeControl "300"]

{509MB, Mirekbook.ctg, BobaBobek-PC} 1. d4 {0} d5 {0} 2. c4 {1} c6 {0} 3. Nf3 {
2} Nf6 {0} 4. Nc3 {1} e6 {0} 5. Bg5 {1} Be7 {0} 6. e3 {3} h6 {0} 7. Bh4 {1} O-O
{0} 8. Rc1 {2} Nbd7 {0} 9. Qc2 {1} a6 {0} 10. a3 {2} b5 {9} 11. c5 {4} a5 {1}
12. b4 {6} Bb7 {10} 13. Bd3 {1} Nh5 {10} 14. Bxe7 {1} Qxe7 {6} 15. O-O {1} Nhf6
{4} 16. Ra1 {3} Rfd8 {15} 17. Ra2 {8} e5 {5} 18. Be2 {9} e4 {0} 19. Nd2 {6}
axb4 {14} 20. axb4 {1} Rxa2 {5} 21. Qxa2 {0} Ra8 {14} 22. Qb2 {0} Nf8 {6} 23.
Ra1 {1} Rxa1+ {4} 24. Qxa1 {1} Ne6 {7} 25. Qa7 {8} Qd7 {7} 26. Qb8+ {9} Qc8 {13
} 27. Qa7 {0} Qd7 {5} 28. Qb8+ {0} Qc8 {3} 29. Qa7 {1} Qd7 {4} 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

[Robert Flesher]

[size=24]If you want to be taken seriously, why not have a controlled match against one of the top engines in controlled conditions.[/size] Sorry to say, but your claim that you can regularly beat these engines smells a little ... especially seeing how doggedly you defended Ivanov in his obvious cheating scandal where he was using computer help in his games. Maybe you both have something in common ... not the cheating part of course ... but you know ... the mysterious,yet incredible ability to play the game of chess at a level not yet understood by other mortal human beings. Please let us setup a match between you and any engine ... no need big hardware ... any desktop will do. Put the conditions up and I am sure a lot of people would be interested in observing how you crush these digital monsters. Kramnik, Carlsen, Anand, Aronian, Nakaumura ... all these guys will probably want a front row seat! I don't count Kasparov as he is retired and your immense talent would probably go right over his head I think it is about time that the world discovered your incredible abilities!

+1

But this will never occur, we all know that.

Amused regards,

The guy who still loses to the top engines.

[carldaman]

Very interesting findings, Lyudmil. If you recall, a while back I had suggested playing SF with contempt on, and I think this is the truest test.



"Never be contemptuous of your opponent" - Fred Wilson

...unless you're Stockfish

Cheers,
CL

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

Very interesting findings, Lyudmil. If you recall, a while back I had suggested playing SF with contempt on, and I think this is the truest test.



"Never be contemptuous of your opponent" - Fred Wilson

...unless you're Stockfish

Cheers,
CL

Hi Carl.

I would say 'never be contemptuous of your opponent, even if you are Stockfish', but never mind.

Yes, I believe it is more difficult for humans to play against Stockfish with maximum contempt, but that would be true only in blitz.

I think the main reason I do poorly against Stockfish with maximum contempt is that currently I am playing somewhat weak, but I willingly acknowledge that I admire the king safety understanding of this version.

Below 2 games, one of which I won, and the other one adjudicated as a draw, as in the final position I would have needed a large amount of time to conclude the game properly, but blitz requirements would prohibit me to do so. There are positions, like this one, where, even if having obvious advantage, you need much time to do the necessary calculations; otherwise, you make some move, and it probably loses the game. Engines calculate shallow lines usually very fast and precisely, but not so poor humans like me.

[pgn][PlyCount "97"]
[Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Sofia"]
[Date "2013.12.18"]
[White "Stockfish DD 64 SSE4.2"]
[Black "Tsvetkov, Lyudmil"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "A18"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]
[Annotator "Tsvetkov,Lyudmil"]
[MLNrOfMoves "48"]
[MLFlags "000100"]

{512MB, Dell XPS 4Cores} 1. e4 {[%emt 0:00:09]} 1... e6 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 2. d4
{[%emt 0:00:07]} 2... d6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 3. c4 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 3... Nf6
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 4. Nc3 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 4... Be7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 5. Nf3
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 5... O-O {[%emt 0:00:03]} 6. Be2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 6... Nc6
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 7. O-O {[%emt 0: 00:04]} 7... e5 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 8. d5
{[%emt 0:00:03]} 8... Nb8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 9. Be3 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 9... Ne8
{[%emt 0:00:00]} 10. c5 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 10... Nd7 {[%emt 0:00: 03]} 11. c6
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 11... Ndf6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 12. Qa4 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 12... b6
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 13. Qc2 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 13... a6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 14. a3
{[%emt 0: 00:12]} 14... h6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 15. Ne1 {[%emt 0:00:16]} 15... Nh7
{[%emt 0:00:09]} 16. f3 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 16... Bg5 {[%emt 0:00:17]} 17. Bf2
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 17... g6 {[%emt 0: 00:03]} 18. Bc4 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 18... f5
{[%emt 0:00:05]} 19. Nd3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 19... f4 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 20. b4
{[%emt 0:00:07]} 20... Bf6 {[%emt 0:00:19]} 21. Rad1 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 21... g5
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 22. Qe2 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 22... h5 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 23. Kh1
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 23... Kh8 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 24. Be1 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 24... Rg8
{[%emt 0:00:06]} 25. Rg1 {[%emt 0:00:10]} 25... g4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 26. Qf2
{[%emt 0: 00:01]} 26... g3 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 27. Qf1 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 27... gxh2
{[%emt 0:00:50]} 28. Kxh2 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 28... Bh4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 29. Rh1
{[%emt 0:00:05]} 29... Bg3+ {[%emt 0:00:12]} 30. Kg1 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 30... h4
{[%emt 0:00:09]} 31. Nf2 {[%emt 0: 00:03]} 31... Nef6 {[%emt 0:00:24]} 32. Ne2
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 32... Nh5 {[%emt 0:00:34]} 33. Rd3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 33... Qf6
{[%emt 0:00:13]} 34. Bb3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 34... Rg6 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 35. Bd2
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 35... Kg7 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 36. Bd1 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 36... Ng5
{[%emt 0:00:06]} 37. Ng4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 37... Qe7 {[%emt 0:00:16]} 38. Nc3
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 38... Nf6 {[%emt 0:00:11]} 39. Nxf6 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 39... Qxf6
{[%emt 0: 00:02]} 40. Ne2 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 40... Rh6 {[%emt 0:00:14]} 41. Rb3
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 41... Qg6 {[%emt 0:00:45]} 42. a4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 42... h3
{[%emt 0:05:07]} 43. Nxg3 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 43... fxg3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 44. Qe2
{[%emt 0:00:00]} 44... hxg2 {[%emt 0: 00:00]} 45. Rxh6 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 45...
Qxh6 {[%emt 0:00:17]} 46. Qxg2 {[%emt 0:00: 00]} 46... Nh3+ {[%emt 0:00:00]} 47.
Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 47... Qh4 {[%emt 0:00:21]} 48. Qh1 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 48...
Kh7 {[%emt 0:00:32]} 49. Be1 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 1/2-1/2

[PlyCount "115"]
[Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Sofia"]
[Date "2013.12.19"]
[White "Tsvetkov, Lyudmil"]
[Black "Stockfish DD 64 SSE4.2"]
[Result "1-0"]
[ECO "A03"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]
[Annotator "Tsvetkov,Lyudmil"]
[MLNrOfMoves "57"]
[MLFlags "000100"]

{512MB, Dell XPS 4Cores} 1. f4 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 1... d5 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 2. Nf3
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 2... e6 {[%emt 0:00:10]} 3. d4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 3... Be7
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 4. e3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 4... c5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 5. c3
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 5... Nf6 {[%emt 0: 00:06]} 6. Bd3 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 6... O-O
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 7. O-O {[%emt 0:00:02]} 7... c4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 8. Bc2
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 8... b5 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 9. a3 {[%emt 0:00: 02]} 9... Bb7
{[%emt 0:00:22]} 10. Ne5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 10... Nc6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 11. Nd2
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 11... Qb6 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 12. Qf3 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 12... a5
{[%emt 0:00: 09]} 13. g4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 13... g6 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 14. g5
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 14... Nxe5 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 15. fxe5 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 15... Nh5
{[%emt 0:00:08]} 16. Qg4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 16... Qd8 {[%emt 0:00:06]} 17. Nf3
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 17... b4 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 18. h4 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 18... b3
{[%emt 0:00:03]} 19. Bd1 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 19... Ng7 {[%emt 0: 00:03]} 20. Nh2
{[%emt 0:00:06]} 20... Nf5 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 21. Qh3 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 21... Bc6
{[%emt 0:00:00]} 22. Ng4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 22... Rb8 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 23. Nf6+
{[%emt 0:00:18]} 23... Bxf6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 24. gxf6 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 24... Kh8
{[%emt 0: 00:03]} 25. Kf2 {[%emt 0:00:08]} 25... Qc8 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 26. Rg1
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 26... Rg8 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 27. Bf3 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 27... Qf8
{[%emt 0:00:05]} 28. Bd2 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 28... Qh6 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 29. Rh1
{[%emt 0:00:20]} 29... Qf8 {[%emt 0:00: 05]} 30. Rag1 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 30... h5
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 31. Rg5 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 31... Qh6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 32. Rhg1
{[%emt 0:00:26]} 32... Qh7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 33. Qh2 {[%emt 0:00:21]} 33... Rbc8
{[%emt 0:00:00]} 34. Kg2 {[%emt 0:00:07]} 34... Rgd8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 35. Kh3
{[%emt 0:00:01]} 35... Rg8 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 36. Qe2 {[%emt 0:00:09]} 36... Rb8
{[%emt 0:00:10]} 37. Be1 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 37... Rgc8 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 38. Bg3
{[%emt 0:00:10]} 38... Rg8 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 39. Bf4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 39... Bb7
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 40. Qf2 {[%emt 0:00:36]} 40... Ra8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 41. Kg2
{[%emt 0:00:08]} 41... a4 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 42. Kf1 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 42... Nh6
{[%emt 0:00:00]} 43. Rh1 {[%emt 0: 00:14]} 43... Bc6 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 44. Rh2
{[%emt 0:00:17]} 44... Rad8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 45. Rhg2 {[%emt 0:00:05]} 45...
Rde8 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 46. Kg1 {[%emt 0:02:14]} 46... Nf5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 47.
Kh1 {[%emt 0:00:09]} 47... Rb8 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 48. Rh2 {[%emt 0: 00:10]} 48...
Nh6 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 49. Qe2 {[%emt 0:00:04]} 49... Bd7 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 50. Rh3
{[%emt 0:00:14]} 50... Nf5 {[%emt 0:00:03]} 51. Bxh5 {[%emt 0:00:20]} 51... gxh5
{[%emt 0:00:00]} 52. Rxh5 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 52... Rg6 {[%emt 0:00:01]} 53. Rxh7+
{[%emt 0:00:04]} 53... Kxh7 {[%emt 0:00:02]} 54. Qh5+ {[%emt 0:00:00]} 54... Kg8
{[%emt 0: 00:05]} 55. Rh2 {[%emt 0:00:12]} 55... Rc8 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 56. Rg2
{[%emt 0:00:05]} 56... Be8 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 57. Bh6 {[%emt 0:01:14]} 57... Rc7
{[%emt 0:00:02]} 58. Bg5 {[%emt 0:00:00]} 1-0
[/pgn]

Some snapshots:

[d]r1bqn1rk/2p4n/ppPp1b2/3Pp2p/1PB1Pp2/P1NN1Pp1/6PP/3RBQRK b - - 0 27
Black can play anything and still win, but you need precise calculations, and at this particular moment of time with the clock ticking I am unable to do them. The problem of white is that the queen side is closed practically, so no counterplay possible there. White should have seized the only opportunity to capture cb7 when it was available.

[d]r1b5/2p1q1k1/ppPp2r1/3Pp1nn/1P2PpNp/P1NR1Pb1/3B2P1/3B1QKR b - - 0 38
Now, tell me, with the clock ticking, what move wins here for black.

[d]1rr4k/5p1q/2b1pPp1/p2pPnRp/2pP3P/PpP1PB1K/1P2Q3/4B1R1 w - - 0 38
This is a known losing line for black, but this is the first game I win in this line against Stockfish maximum contempt. And even in this game I am so slow and clumsy, that it is a miracle the advantage was converted at all.

[d]4b1k1/2r2p2/4pPr1/3pPnBQ/p1pP3P/PpP1P3/1P4R1/7K b - - 0 58
Here the Fritz GUI said 'I resign' on the part of Stockfish. I think this is the only technical message Windows sends that I really like.

So that the situation is not that hopeless even against Stockfish with maximum contempt, but you need more time to find the good lines, unless you are in an optimal form or have a lucky day.

Many thanks again to the people who provided for free this excellent engine! In the future I might post some more Stockfish winning games, to do the engine justice.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

[d]r1b5/2p1q1k1/ppPp2r1/3Pp1nn/1P2PpNp/P1NR1Pb1/3B2P1/3B1QKR b - - 0 38
Now, tell me, with the clock ticking, what move wins here for black.

Now I see very easily the obvious move Bg4, freeing the black a8 rook, followed by Nf6, Rh8, (Rgh6), h3, but that is when my head is not under the stress of the game itself. When you are under pressure, you frequently do not find optimal moves, and that is one more downside for humans, as engines are never under pressure psychologically. And in the game I was thinking, ' Now, I want to win that game against Stockfish, I just want to win it' , but the win was not coming my way. On many occasions an aggravated desire to win at all costs is certainly a kind of psychological pressure from which engines do not suffer.

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

[size=24]If you want to be taken seriously, why not have a controlled match against one of the top engines in controlled conditions.[/size] Sorry to say, but your claim that you can regularly beat these engines smells a little ... especially seeing how doggedly you defended Ivanov in his obvious cheating scandal where he was using computer help in his games. Maybe you both have something in common ... not the cheating part of course ... but you know ... the mysterious,yet incredible ability to play the game of chess at a level not yet understood by other mortal human beings. Please let us setup a match between you and any engine ... no need big hardware ... any desktop will do. Put the conditions up and I am sure a lot of people would be interested in observing how you crush these digital monsters. Kramnik, Carlsen, Anand, Aronian, Nakaumura ... all these guys will probably want a front row seat! I don't count Kasparov as he is retired and your immense talent would probably go right over his head I think it is about time that the world discovered your incredible abilities!

+1

But this will never occur, we all know that.

Amused regards,

The guy who still loses to the top engines.

My advice to you would be to play 20-30 games against engines per night instead of 5-10, and you will see with time it is not that impossible to play decently against even the top.

My controlled conditions would be airtight playing room (so no noise there), just me and the computer, you check the human for whatever cheating devices you suppose she might be using, you install some cameras that inspect the room and the behaviour of the human player, but none of the available technical equipment should not be noisy (for example loud computer fans), and then you start playing.

You can not even imagine the amount of mental energy humans are gaining if able to play in optimal quiet, undisturbed playing conditions. It is like tripling, quadrupling, etc. the power of a computer, and you know there is some effect with this in terms of strength. It is a known fact that humans use 10% of their mental energy, and so do chess players when facing each other or engines. Where do the other 90% go? I will tell you. For example, you play a tournament somewhere. 10% go to not able to concentrate deep enough because the noise level is higher than necessary. 10% go to the toll of getting accustomed to all kinds of external disturbances, for example the referee indicating something or 2 players on the next table quarreling about something. 10% go to putting up with the psychological pressure of facing your opponent: instead of thinking only about the game position, you also think if it would be possible to win the game and how difficult that would be. Another 10% go to the fight with your inner self, when you are uncertain of your own capabilitities, and that happens sometimes. And of course, another 10% go to taking the occasional look at beautiful ladies in the playing hall (if present).

When you do the maths, 90% of your mental energy is gone to doing something else different from thinking on the game itself. I.e., human chess players are using in general only about 10% of the time allocated to the game for thinking strictly on the game position. Of course, they underperform. Now, when you are not distracted by the noise, opponents, internal fights, beautiful ladies, etc., you have suddenly 90% more thinking time! That certainly makes a difference. That is why a human player to be able to successfully play against the engines, needs airtight room. But he will also have to learn to take advantage of the available more quiet, move to the background any psychological tensions, etc. Nothing surprising there, it is as if a computer had only one or multiple cores. Do you notice the difference?

For myself, I can tell you one thing: I am relatively very weak, from time to time have my psychological problems, like everyone else, so that I am unable to play good chess whenever and wherever, but, I have observed that in quiet conditions with a minimum number of disturbances (usually it is difficult to eradicate them all) I play unimaginably better than when playing in noisy conditions with many external disturbances (which unfortunately happens quite frequently).

So that my point was that I myself am unable to do well against chess opponents under normal conditions, but there certainly are human players that are much better than me in terms of the level of chess, are more psychologically stable, have more stamina, etc., and the only thing they would need in order to perform successfully against top engines is learn to use their mental energy in quiet conditions, prepare well with some anticomputer strategy, and find a way to dissipate any existing psychological tensions. It is certainly pssible to do this, I am trying (mostly unsuccessfully, as there is always something in life that will prevent you to do so) to do this occasionally, but there certainly are humans that are much more talented than me, much more psychologically stable that would be able to compete even against the top engines.

[lucasart]

I do not know how Stockfish contempt works, might not be implemented in the most sophisticated way, but what I managed to ascertain, as expected, is that engines with contempt set on in no way play any better against humans.

Stockfish simply uses the contempt value to score draws. These are only the draws by chess rules (not by chess knowledge): 3-repetition, 50 move, stalemate, insufficient material. Obviously, in most cases, it's the 3-repetition draw that contempt helps avoid. For example, if the engine is given the choice between accepting a position worth -20cp and going for a draw by repetition, it will not accept the draw if contempt > 20cp, and will accept the draw when contempt <= 20cp.

This is the standard and most basic way of implementing a contempt feature. SF also does some dubious rescaling of the contempt score, but that's a detail.

Even with large contempt, SF will not avoid blocked positions. Often you manage to draw or even win by creating a deadly bind, which prevents the computer from exploiting its tactical superiority. A nice improvement of SF contempt would be to make it avoid closed positions, by introducing some asymmetric eval term. I can easily code it, and submit it to Marco. The real difficulty is to get Marco to commit the code...

Otherwise I can put an anti human feature in DiscoCheck. Interested ?

[M ANSARI]

[size=24]If you want to be taken seriously, why not have a controlled match against one of the top engines in controlled conditions.[/size] Sorry to say, but your claim that you can regularly beat these engines smells a little ... especially seeing how doggedly you defended Ivanov in his obvious cheating scandal where he was using computer help in his games. Maybe you both have something in common ... not the cheating part of course ... but you know ... the mysterious,yet incredible ability to play the game of chess at a level not yet understood by other mortal human beings. Please let us setup a match between you and any engine ... no need big hardware ... any desktop will do. Put the conditions up and I am sure a lot of people would be interested in observing how you crush these digital monsters. Kramnik, Carlsen, Anand, Aronian, Nakaumura ... all these guys will probably want a front row seat! I don't count Kasparov as he is retired and your immense talent would probably go right over his head I think it is about time that the world discovered your incredible abilities!

+1

But this will never occur, we all know that.

Amused regards,

The guy who still loses to the top engines.

My advice to you would be to play 20-30 games against engines per night instead of 5-10, and you will see with time it is not that impossible to play decently against even the top.

My controlled conditions would be airtight playing room (so no noise there), just me and the computer, you check the human for whatever cheating devices you suppose she might be using, you install some cameras that inspect the room and the behaviour of the human player, but none of the available technical equipment should not be noisy (for example loud computer fans), and then you start playing.

You can not even imagine the amount of mental energy humans are gaining if able to play in optimal quiet, undisturbed playing conditions. It is like tripling, quadrupling, etc. the power of a computer, and you know there is some effect with this in terms of strength. It is a known fact that humans use 10% of their mental energy, and so do chess players when facing each other or engines. Where do the other 90% go? I will tell you. For example, you play a tournament somewhere. 10% go to not able to concentrate deep enough because the noise level is higher than necessary. 10% go to the toll of getting accustomed to all kinds of external disturbances, for example the referee indicating something or 2 players on the next table quarreling about something. 10% go to putting up with the psychological pressure of facing your opponent: instead of thinking only about the game position, you also think if it would be possible to win the game and how difficult that would be. Another 10% go to the fight with your inner self, when you are uncertain of your own capabilitities, and that happens sometimes. And of course, another 10% go to taking the occasional look at beautiful ladies in the playing hall (if present).

When you do the maths, 90% of your mental energy is gone to doing something else different from thinking on the game itself. I.e., human chess players are using in general only about 10% of the time allocated to the game for thinking strictly on the game position. Of course, they underperform. Now, when you are not distracted by the noise, opponents, internal fights, beautiful ladies, etc., you have suddenly 90% more thinking time! That certainly makes a difference. That is why a human player to be able to successfully play against the engines, needs airtight room. But he will also have to learn to take advantage of the available more quiet, move to the background any psychological tensions, etc. Nothing surprising there, it is as if a computer had only one or multiple cores. Do you notice the difference?

For myself, I can tell you one thing: I am relatively very weak, from time to time have my psychological problems, like everyone else, so that I am unable to play good chess whenever and wherever, but, I have observed that in quiet conditions with a minimum number of disturbances (usually it is difficult to eradicate them all) I play unimaginably better than when playing in noisy conditions with many external disturbances (which unfortunately happens quite frequently).

So that my point was that I myself am unable to do well against chess opponents under normal conditions, but there certainly are human players that are much better than me in terms of the level of chess, are more psychologically stable, have more stamina, etc., and the only thing they would need in order to perform successfully against top engines is learn to use their mental energy in quiet conditions, prepare well with some anticomputer strategy, and find a way to dissipate any existing psychological tensions. It is certainly pssible to do this, I am trying (mostly unsuccessfully, as there is always something in life that will prevent you to do so) to do this occasionally, but there certainly are humans that are much more talented than me, much more psychologically stable that would be able to compete even against the top engines.

LOL


Please tell me you are not serious Can I ask what your human rating is? Surely someone as strong as you has played competitive chess at the highest levels! Who was the strongest human player that you have ever beaten in chess? Damn ... and all this time I thought you improve in chess by playing competitively against strong opponents and spending a lot of time training and studying the game! If only someone had told me earlier that the path to surpass GM level play was as simple as reducing the decibel level !!!

[overlord]

You don´t have to be strong player at all. You have to know to play against engines. See next game...is there even one move which would not play avarage player (e.g.2000 - 2100 ELO)?

[pgn][Event "Blitz 5m"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2013.12.19"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Kvicala, Miroslav"]
[Black "Stockfish DD 64 SSE4.2"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[PlyCount "278"]
[TimeControl "300"]

{509MB, Mirekbook.ctg, BobaBobek-PC} 1. d4 {0} e6 {0} 2. c4 {1} Bb4+ {0} 3. Bd2
{1} Qe7 {0} 4. Nf3 {2} Bxd2+ {6} 5. Qxd2 {2} Nf6 {3} 6. Nc3 {1} O-O {5} 7. e3 {
1} d6 {6} 8. Rc1 {3} b6 {9} 9. Be2 {1} Bb7 {9} 10. O-O {0} Ne4 {6} 11. Nxe4 {5}
Bxe4 {1} 12. Qc3 {2} c5 {12} 13. a3 {2} Nd7 {5} 14. dxc5 {8} dxc5 {5} 15. Rfd1
{1} Bc6 {9} 16. Ne5 {8} Nxe5 {4} 17. Qxe5 {1} Ba4 {3} 18. Rd2 {6} Rad8 {5} 19.
Qc3 {6} Rxd2 {5} 20. Qxd2 {0} Rd8 {6} 21. Qc3 {1} f6 {5} 22. b3 {3} Bc6 {3} 23.
Rd1 {6} Rxd1+ {0} 24. Bxd1 {1} Qd6 {5} 25. Be2 {10} a5 {2} 26. a4 {6} e5 {6}
27. Qd3 {6} Qxd3 {0} 28. Bxd3 {1} e4 {6} 29. Bc2 {3} Kf7 {4} 30. h4 {4} Ke6 {4}
31. g3 {2} Ke5 {4} 32. Bd1 {4} Be8 {4} 33. Kg2 {5} Kf5 {4} 34. Be2 {6} g6 {0}
35. Bd1 {5} Bc6 {4} 36. Be2 {1} Bd7 {5} 37. Bd1 {1} Ke5 {9} 38. Be2 {4} g5 {6}
39. Bd1 {7} g4 {4} 40. Be2 {3} f5 {3} 41. Bd1 {1} h6 {4} 42. Bc2 {1} Bc6 {3}
43. Bd1 {2} Be8 {3} 44. Bc2 {1} Bh5 {2} 45. Bd1 {5} Bf7 {3} 46. Bc2 {1} Be6 {3}
47. Kf1 {1} Bc8 {3} 48. Ke2 {0} Bd7 {3} 49. Kf1 {0} Ke6 {3} 50. Ke2 {0} Be8 {3}
51. Kf1 {0} Bf7 {3} 52. Ke2 {0} Ke5 {2} 53. Kf1 {0} Bh5 {3} 54. Ke2 {0} Bg6 {3}
55. Kf1 {0} Kd6 {2} 56. Ke2 {0} Bh5 {2} 57. Kf1 {0} Bf7 {2} 58. Ke2 {0} Be6 {3}
59. Kf1 {0} Bd7 {2} 60. Ke2 {0} Bc6 {2} 61. Kf1 {0} Ke5 {2} 62. Ke2 {0} Be8 {2}
63. Kf1 {0} Bg6 {2} 64. Ke2 {0} Bh5 {2} 65. Kf1 {0} Kd6 {2} 66. Ke2 {0} Be8 {2}
67. Kf1 {0} Bc6 {2} 68. Ke2 {0} Bd7 {1} 69. Kf1 {0} Be8 {2} 70. Ke1 {0} Kc7 {1}
71. Kd1 {0} Kc6 {1} 72. Kc1 {0} Kd6 {2} 73. Kb1 {0} Bc6 {1} 74. Ka1 {0} Bd7 {3}
75. Kb1 {0} Ke5 {1} 76. Kc1 {0} Bc8 {2} 77. Kd1 {0} Kf6 {1} 78. Ke1 {0} Bd7 {1}
79. Kf1 {0} Bc6 {1} 80. Kg1 {0} Ke6 {1} 81. Kh1 {0} Be8 {1} 82. Kg1 {0} Bf7 {1}
83. Kf1 {0} Bg6 {6} 84. Ke1 {0} Bh5 {1} 85. Kd1 {0} Be8 {1} 86. Kc1 {0} Ke5 {1}
87. Kb1 {0} Bc6 {1} 88. Ka1 {0} Ke6 {1} 89. Kb1 {0} h5 {1} 90. Kb2 {0} Ke5 {1}
91. Kc1 {0} Bb7 {1} 92. Kd1 {0} Bc8 {1} 93. Ke1 {0} Ba6 {1} 94. Kf1 {0} Bb7 {1}
95. Kg1 {0} Bc8 {1} 96. Kh1 {0} Be6 {1} 97. Kg2 {0} Bd7 {0} 98. Kg1 {0} Be8 {0}
99. Kg2 {0} Bc6 {0} 100. Kg1 {0} Bb7 {1} 101. Kg2 {0} Kd6 {1} 102. Kg1 {0} Bc6
{1} 103. Kg2 {0} Bd7 {1} 104. Kg1 {0} Be8 {0} 105. Kg2 {0} Ke6 {0} 106. Kg1 {0}
Bc6 {0} 107. Kg2 {0} Bd7 {0} 108. Kg1 {0} Bc8 {1} 109. Kg2 {0} Kf6 {0} 110. Kg1
{0} Be6 {0} 111. Kg2 {0} Ke5 {0} 112. Kg1 {0} Bf7 {0} 113. Kg2 {0} Bg6 {0} 114.
Kg1 {0} Bh7 {0} 115. Kg2 {0} Bg8 {0} 116. Kg1 {0} Kd6 {0} 117. Kg2 {0} Be6 {0}
118. Kg1 {0} Bc8 {0} 119. Kg2 {0} Kc6 {0} 120. Kg1 {0} Bd7 {0} 121. Kg2 {0} Be6
{0} 122. Kg1 {0} Bg8 {0} 123. Kg2 {0} Bf7 {0} 124. Kg1 {1} Kd6 {0} 125. Kf1 {0}
Bg6 {0} 126. Ke1 {1} Ke5 {0} 127. Kd2 {1} Be8 {0} 128. Kd1 {0} Bd7 {0} 129. Kd2
{0} Be6 {0} 130. Kd1 {0} Bf7 {0} 131. Kd2 {0} Kd6 {0} 132. Kd1 {0} Be6 {0} 133.
Kd2 {0} Bd7 {0} 134. Kd1 {0} Bc6 {0} 135. Kd2 {0} Bb7 {1} 136. Kd1 {0} Ke6 {0}
137. Kd2 {0} Ba6 {0} 138. Kd1 {0} Ke5 {0} 139. Kd2 {0} Bb5 {0} 1/2-1/2[/pgn][/url]

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

I do not know how Stockfish contempt works, might not be implemented in the most sophisticated way, but what I managed to ascertain, as expected, is that engines with contempt set on in no way play any better against humans.

Stockfish simply uses the contempt value to score draws. These are only the draws by chess rules (not by chess knowledge): 3-repetition, 50 move, stalemate, insufficient material. Obviously, in most cases, it's the 3-repetition draw that contempt helps avoid. For example, if the engine is given the choice between accepting a position worth -20cp and going for a draw by repetition, it will not accept the draw if contempt > 20cp, and will accept the draw when contempt <= 20cp.

This is the standard and most basic way of implementing a contempt feature. SF also does some dubious rescaling of the contempt score, but that's a detail.

Even with large contempt, SF will not avoid blocked positions. Often you manage to draw or even win by creating a deadly bind, which prevents the computer from exploiting its tactical superiority. A nice improvement of SF contempt would be to make it avoid closed positions, by introducing some asymmetric eval term. I can easily code it, and submit it to Marco. The real difficulty is to get Marco to commit the code...

Otherwise I can put an anti human feature in DiscoCheck. Interested ?

I am very much interested in anything that would not allow me even a single win.

The problem is if this is achievable...
I think DiscoCheck with most sophisticated contempt still would not be able to surpass the level of play against humans of Stockfish with whatever contempt. But of course, very nice idea, I would like to see it implemented.