Return Match for Komodo

[Nordlandia]

K10.1 vs H4 Pro with odds: Komodo is obligated to play the Hammerschlag.

TC: 150m+30s
CPU: i7-5960X 4.1GHz
Hash: 4096 MB allocated per engine
TBs: 6-Men Syzygy
GUI: Fritz 15 [last patch]
OS: Windows 10 [last update installed]
------
Komodo Table Memory: 256 MB
Komodo Contempt: 7
Dynamism: 115
------
Houdini contempt: 0

[pgn][Event "EXPERT-PC, Slow 150m+30s"]
[Site "https://lichess.org/fKfYYOrt"]
[Date "2016.08.13"]
[White "Komodo 10.1 64-bit"]
[Black "Houdini 4 Pro x64"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[WhiteElo "?"]
[BlackElo "?"]
[PlyCount "98"]
[Variant "Standard"]
[TimeControl "-"]
[ECO "A00"]
[Opening "Gedult's Opening"]
[Termination "Normal"]
[Annotator "lichess.org"]

1. f3?! { (0.15 → -0.58) Inaccuracy. Best move was e4. } { A00 Gedult's Opening } (1. e4 e5 2. Nf3 Nc6 3. Bb5 a6 4. Bxc6 dxc6 5. O-O Bg4 6. d3 Nf6 7. h3 Bxf3) 1... e5 2. Kf2?! { (-0.55 → -1.28) Inaccuracy. Best move was e4. } (2. e4 Nc6 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. Bc4 Bc5 5. Nge2 O-O 6. d3 a6 7. Bg5 b5 8. Bb3 h6) 2... d5 3. e3 Nc6 4. Bb5 Bd6 5. Ne2 e4 6. f4 Qh4+ 7. Kg1 g5 8. Qf1 Ne7 9. Qf2 Qh6 10. Nbc3 Bd7 11. d3 f5 12. Bxc6 Bxc6 13. fxg5 Qxg5 14. a4 Rg8 15. Nb5 O-O-O 16. Nxd6+ Rxd6 17. d4 Rdg6 18. Nf4 Rh6 19. h4 Qg4 20. Rh3 Qd1+ 21. Kh2 Ng6 22. Qe2 Qxe2 23. Nxe2 Bd7 24. Rg3 Rxh4+ 25. Kg1 Rg4 26. Rxg4 fxg4 27. b3 Rf8 28. Ba3 Rf6 29. Ng3 Be8 30. Rc1 Rc6 31. Kh2 Bd7 32. a5 a6 33. Kg1 Kd8 34. c4 Be6 35. c5 Nh4 36. Rf1 Ke7 37. Rf4 Bc8 38. Bb4 Ke8 39. Nh5 Nf5 40. Rxf5 Bxf5 41. Ng7+ Kf7 42. Nxf5 h5 43. Be1 Kf6 44. Ng3 Kg5 45. Ne2 Rf6 46. Bg3 Rf7 47. Bf4+ Kf5 48. Be5 h4 49. Kf2 Ke6+ { Draw } 1/2-1/2[/pgn]

https://en.lichess.org/fKfYYOrt#3

[Lyudmil Tsvetkov]

http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/uk ... ded&page=1

https://www.chess.com/blog/djrojas/famous-chess-fakes

It is one thing to do this when you are trying to fool the general population as they don't know much about computer chess ... but to do it on a computer chess forum ... well that just is an insult to human intelligence.

I especially liked the reasoning the neurosurgeon gave when Ivanchuck challenged him to a chess game so that he can prove he knows how to play chess ... "not interesting as it would be child's play".

I think we have a very similar case here, with very similar trash talk.

Man, how do you want me to play with an engine that loses in less than 30 moves?

[pgn][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2016.08.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Komodo 10.1 64-bit"]
[Black "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B31"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "2016.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. e4 {1.23/19 3} c5 {6} 2. Nf3 {1.21/21 9} Nc6 {2} 3. Bb5 {
1.20/20 6} g6 {2} 4. O-O {1.13/19 8} Bg7 {2} 5. Nc3 {1.18/20 4} e5 {2} 6. d3 {
1.15/20 8} Nge7 {3} 7. a3 {1.10/21 9} a5 {2} 8. Bc4 {1.39/22 10} O-O {3} 9. Nb5
{1.34/23 5} d6 {3} 10. a4 {1.37/21 6} h6 {2} 11. c3 {1.34/20 4} Kh7 {3} 12. Be3
{1.44/18 6} f5 {4} 13. Bd2 {1.41/19 5} f4 {3} 14. h3 {1.49/20 8} g5 {2} 15. Qb3
{1.43/19 6} Ng6 {8} 16. Bf7 {1.36/19 6} Qe7 {8} 17. Bd5 {1.23/19 3} h5 {8} 18.
Nh2 {1.45/19 5} g4 {6} 19. hxg4 {1.37/19 12} hxg4 {1} 20. g3 {1.37/20 8} f3 {23
} 21. Na3 {1.27/18 7} Bh6 {133} 22. Be3 {0.43/19 9} Kg7 {20} 23. Bxh6+ {-0.28/
17 6} Kxh6 {2} 24. d4 {-0.53/17 3} Kg7 {285} 25. dxc5 {0.00/17 3} Rh8 {87} 26.
Nb5 {-2.38/18 5} Qg5 {36} 27. Bg8 {-20.72/20 3} Nd8 {64} 28. Bh7 {-29.03/22 1}
Rxh7 {16} 29. Rfd1 {-32.23/22 1} Rxh2 {29} 0-1

[/pgn]

People simply asked you to take on Komodo10 in controlled conditions, where cheating is not possible.

The fact that it is possible to beat Komodo in less than 30 moves maybe in 1 game out of 1000 and maybe with some help during the game does not prove that humans can do it in controlled conditions.

You claim that you can do what people believe no human can do so
people want to see if you can beat Komodo in controlled conditions.

No need to wait for Komodo to be 300 elo stronger and people want to see if you can do it against Komodo of today in controlled conditions.

What does controlled conditions mean?

If it means lots of noise, lots of paperman, lots of cameras, all those things Fischer hated so much, than I prefer never to play in controlled conditions.

Or, maybe controlled conditions means your opponent shaking the table during the game, an occasional kick, just to unnerve you, talking to you during the game, but also listening to other people talking on the very next table who just finished their game, but yours is still going on, all those kinds of psychological complications that very much lower anybody's concentration, then I would prefer not to play under controlled conditions.

I am strong only when I can fully concentrate, in such a state of mind I am not afraid of absolutely anyone, unfortunately, deep concentration is kind of rarity in our over-rushed world.

And basically, I am an out-of-control man.

I guess you can do the simple math: If I am playing at TC 10' + 10' vs 2' + 2'', with the increment this makes some 20 minutes on average for a game. So 3 games per hour are possible, but not many more. If I play all day, 12 hours times 3 games per hour would give 36 games per day. And if I post one winning game every day or so, this will mean that at worst I am able to win 1 game every 36 games.

There is a difference between 36 and 1000, even if the 36 number is true.

I acknowledge that I am greatly helped by my knowledge of certain setups that the engines badly misplay, if I did not use such setups, I would have scored much worse.

But there is one main reason for my success: top engines out-tactick me heavily, they also out-search me greatly, but I am able to significantly out-evaluate them in most cases, which is my only, but ponderous trump-card.

When you get a position the engine misevaluates in a sufficient degree to get into a lost position, why not win the game?

But this leads us nowhere: we are talking one and the same thing. I know how strong I am when I am well-concentrated, and I also know I can significantly underperform, the more so the less concentrated I am.

I wanted to post those games just to show that it is still possible to win games from engines even with large contempt set on, but obviously such an approach is unwelcome on this forum.

[pilgrimdan]

http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/uk ... ded&page=1

https://www.chess.com/blog/djrojas/famous-chess-fakes

It is one thing to do this when you are trying to fool the general population as they don't know much about computer chess ... but to do it on a computer chess forum ... well that just is an insult to human intelligence.

I especially liked the reasoning the neurosurgeon gave when Ivanchuck challenged him to a chess game so that he can prove he knows how to play chess ... "not interesting as it would be child's play".

I think we have a very similar case here, with very similar trash talk.

Man, how do you want me to play with an engine that loses in less than 30 moves?

[pgn][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2016.08.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Komodo 10.1 64-bit"]
[Black "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B31"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "2016.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. e4 {1.23/19 3} c5 {6} 2. Nf3 {1.21/21 9} Nc6 {2} 3. Bb5 {
1.20/20 6} g6 {2} 4. O-O {1.13/19 8} Bg7 {2} 5. Nc3 {1.18/20 4} e5 {2} 6. d3 {
1.15/20 8} Nge7 {3} 7. a3 {1.10/21 9} a5 {2} 8. Bc4 {1.39/22 10} O-O {3} 9. Nb5
{1.34/23 5} d6 {3} 10. a4 {1.37/21 6} h6 {2} 11. c3 {1.34/20 4} Kh7 {3} 12. Be3
{1.44/18 6} f5 {4} 13. Bd2 {1.41/19 5} f4 {3} 14. h3 {1.49/20 8} g5 {2} 15. Qb3
{1.43/19 6} Ng6 {8} 16. Bf7 {1.36/19 6} Qe7 {8} 17. Bd5 {1.23/19 3} h5 {8} 18.
Nh2 {1.45/19 5} g4 {6} 19. hxg4 {1.37/19 12} hxg4 {1} 20. g3 {1.37/20 8} f3 {23
} 21. Na3 {1.27/18 7} Bh6 {133} 22. Be3 {0.43/19 9} Kg7 {20} 23. Bxh6+ {-0.28/
17 6} Kxh6 {2} 24. d4 {-0.53/17 3} Kg7 {285} 25. dxc5 {0.00/17 3} Rh8 {87} 26.
Nb5 {-2.38/18 5} Qg5 {36} 27. Bg8 {-20.72/20 3} Nd8 {64} 28. Bh7 {-29.03/22 1}
Rxh7 {16} 29. Rfd1 {-32.23/22 1} Rxh2 {29} 0-1

[/pgn]

People simply asked you to take on Komodo10 in controlled conditions, where cheating is not possible.

The fact that it is possible to beat Komodo in less than 30 moves maybe in 1 game out of 1000 and maybe with some help during the game does not prove that humans can do it in controlled conditions.

You claim that you can do what people believe no human can do so
people want to see if you can beat Komodo in controlled conditions.

No need to wait for Komodo to be 300 elo stronger and people want to see if you can do it against Komodo of today in controlled conditions.

What does controlled conditions mean?

If it means lots of noise, lots of paperman, lots of cameras, all those things Fischer hated so much, than I prefer never to play in controlled conditions.

Or, maybe controlled conditions means your opponent shaking the table during the game, an occasional kick, just to unnerve you, talking to you during the game, but also listening to other people talking on the very next table who just finished their game, but yours is still going on, all those kinds of psychological complications that very much lower anybody's concentration, then I would prefer not to play under controlled conditions.

I am strong only when I can fully concentrate, in such a state of mind I am not afraid of absolutely anyone, unfortunately, deep concentration is kind of rarity in our over-rushed world.

And basically, I am an out-of-control man.

I guess you can do the simple math: If I am playing at TC 10' + 10' vs 2' + 2'', with the increment this makes some 20 minutes on average for a game. So 3 games per hour are possible, but not many more. If I play all day, 12 hours times 3 games per hour would give 36 games per day. And if I post one winning game every day or so, this will mean that at worst I am able to win 1 game every 36 games.

There is a difference between 36 and 1000, even if the 36 number is true.

I acknowledge that I am greatly helped by my knowledge of certain setups that the engines badly misplay, if I did not use such setups, I would have scored much worse.

But there is one main reason for my success: top engines out-tactick me heavily, they also out-search me greatly, but I am able to significantly out-evaluate them in most cases, which is my only, but ponderous trump-card.

When you get a position the engine misevaluates in a sufficient degree to get into a lost position, why not win the game?

But this leads us nowhere: we are talking one and the same thing. I know how strong I am when I am well-concentrated, and I also know I can significantly underperform, the more so the less concentrated I am.

I wanted to post those games just to show that it is still possible to win games from engines even with large contempt set on, but obviously such an approach is unwelcome on this forum.

good post Lyudmil... I like what you say...

[APassionForCriminalJustic]

http://www.chessvibes.com/?q=reports/uk ... ded&page=1

https://www.chess.com/blog/djrojas/famous-chess-fakes

It is one thing to do this when you are trying to fool the general population as they don't know much about computer chess ... but to do it on a computer chess forum ... well that just is an insult to human intelligence.

I especially liked the reasoning the neurosurgeon gave when Ivanchuck challenged him to a chess game so that he can prove he knows how to play chess ... "not interesting as it would be child's play".

I think we have a very similar case here, with very similar trash talk.

Man, how do you want me to play with an engine that loses in less than 30 moves?

[pgn][Event "Blitz 2m+2s"]
[Site "Microsoft"]
[Date "2016.08.12"]
[Round "?"]
[White "Komodo 10.1 64-bit"]
[Black "Lyudmil Tsvetkov, owner"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "B31"]
[Annotator "owner"]
[PlyCount "58"]
[EventDate "2016.??.??"]
[TimeControl "120+2"]

{512MB, OWNER-PC} 1. e4 {1.23/19 3} c5 {6} 2. Nf3 {1.21/21 9} Nc6 {2} 3. Bb5 {
1.20/20 6} g6 {2} 4. O-O {1.13/19 8} Bg7 {2} 5. Nc3 {1.18/20 4} e5 {2} 6. d3 {
1.15/20 8} Nge7 {3} 7. a3 {1.10/21 9} a5 {2} 8. Bc4 {1.39/22 10} O-O {3} 9. Nb5
{1.34/23 5} d6 {3} 10. a4 {1.37/21 6} h6 {2} 11. c3 {1.34/20 4} Kh7 {3} 12. Be3
{1.44/18 6} f5 {4} 13. Bd2 {1.41/19 5} f4 {3} 14. h3 {1.49/20 8} g5 {2} 15. Qb3
{1.43/19 6} Ng6 {8} 16. Bf7 {1.36/19 6} Qe7 {8} 17. Bd5 {1.23/19 3} h5 {8} 18.
Nh2 {1.45/19 5} g4 {6} 19. hxg4 {1.37/19 12} hxg4 {1} 20. g3 {1.37/20 8} f3 {23
} 21. Na3 {1.27/18 7} Bh6 {133} 22. Be3 {0.43/19 9} Kg7 {20} 23. Bxh6+ {-0.28/
17 6} Kxh6 {2} 24. d4 {-0.53/17 3} Kg7 {285} 25. dxc5 {0.00/17 3} Rh8 {87} 26.
Nb5 {-2.38/18 5} Qg5 {36} 27. Bg8 {-20.72/20 3} Nd8 {64} 28. Bh7 {-29.03/22 1}
Rxh7 {16} 29. Rfd1 {-32.23/22 1} Rxh2 {29} 0-1

[/pgn]

People simply asked you to take on Komodo10 in controlled conditions, where cheating is not possible.

The fact that it is possible to beat Komodo in less than 30 moves maybe in 1 game out of 1000 and maybe with some help during the game does not prove that humans can do it in controlled conditions.

You claim that you can do what people believe no human can do so
people want to see if you can beat Komodo in controlled conditions.

No need to wait for Komodo to be 300 elo stronger and people want to see if you can do it against Komodo of today in controlled conditions.

What does controlled conditions mean?

If it means lots of noise, lots of paperman, lots of cameras, all those things Fischer hated so much, than I prefer never to play in controlled conditions.

Or, maybe controlled conditions means your opponent shaking the table during the game, an occasional kick, just to unnerve you, talking to you during the game, but also listening to other people talking on the very next table who just finished their game, but yours is still going on, all those kinds of psychological complications that very much lower anybody's concentration, then I would prefer not to play under controlled conditions.

I am strong only when I can fully concentrate, in such a state of mind I am not afraid of absolutely anyone, unfortunately, deep concentration is kind of rarity in our over-rushed world.

And basically, I am an out-of-control man.

I guess you can do the simple math: If I am playing at TC 10' + 10' vs 2' + 2'', with the increment this makes some 20 minutes on average for a game. So 3 games per hour are possible, but not many more. If I play all day, 12 hours times 3 games per hour would give 36 games per day. And if I post one winning game every day or so, this will mean that at worst I am able to win 1 game every 36 games.

There is a difference between 36 and 1000, even if the 36 number is true.

I acknowledge that I am greatly helped by my knowledge of certain setups that the engines badly misplay, if I did not use such setups, I would have scored much worse.

But there is one main reason for my success: top engines out-tactick me heavily, they also out-search me greatly, but I am able to significantly out-evaluate them in most cases, which is my only, but ponderous trump-card.

When you get a position the engine misevaluates in a sufficient degree to get into a lost position, why not win the game?

But this leads us nowhere: we are talking one and the same thing. I know how strong I am when I am well-concentrated, and I also know I can significantly underperform, the more so the less concentrated I am.

I wanted to post those games just to show that it is still possible to win games from engines even with large contempt set on, but obviously such an approach is unwelcome on this forum.

No matter how strong that you think you are you come nowhere close to Magnus's or Anand's strength. Players of that caliber have the best chance to find some victory versus an engine like Komodo in handicap scenarios. Beating Komodo today, especially with equal material, is virtually impossible. You can keep claiming what you want - just like ARB and Rocket from the Rybka forum - but your claims don't add up. Play someone's hardware and Komodo that you DON'T control and let's see how you do. We can set up a match on FICS where you control nothing. We will do 100 games. Let's see how you do when you don't control Komodo on your laptop.

Logic speaks for itself. Engines won't blunder games to mere humans. It makes no sense unless you purposely make it play like utter crap exp., adjust engine level or something.

Seriously your claim is like saying that Usain Bolt could outrun a cheetah. This whole crap about humans out-evaluating engines is nonsense. You are not going to get the engine into a losing position. And even then you would still need to not blunder.

Komodo losing in less than thirty moves to you? Do you know how stupid that sounds? Magnus wouldn't even have the chance of doing that and he would kick your butt with ease in match play. Get real man.

[Laskos]

...

...

good post Lyudmil... I like what you say...

I agree. Also, he wrote:

What does controlled conditions mean?

If it means lots of noise, lots of paperman, lots of cameras, all those things Fischer hated so much, than I prefer never to play in controlled conditions.

Kasparov and Capablanca hated controlled conditions too. So, we have 4 great chess players with affinities.

[M ANSARI]

Oh please spare me the drama! Controlled conditions are there for one thing ... and one thing only. To ensure that you don't cheat ... whether it is cheating by looking at engine output ... cheating by using another engine to choose your move ... cheating by taking back moves every time you blunder ... or cheating by manipulating the hardware or software that Komodo is playing with. I don't really know if you are just acting naive to the possibility of cheating or really are naive. You are posting games with just notation of the game played ... and you expect us to by default believe you. I really think this is rather funny ... or sad ... or both! Remember this is a computer chess forum so please stop insulting our intelligence.