It's called a bullshit detector and in your case it was glowing red in most of your "technical" postsOvyron wrote:Wow, Milos, you have a formidable ability to deduce what other people are able to understand or not, are you a psychic or a medium?

Moderator: Ras
It's called a bullshit detector and in your case it was glowing red in most of your "technical" postsOvyron wrote:Wow, Milos, you have a formidable ability to deduce what other people are able to understand or not, are you a psychic or a medium?
Yes. In view that both lines especially the a6 lines fail - I am changing my assessment of the position. Now I believe that the position after Kf8 is very likely a draw, even if the defense is hanging by a thin thread.zullil wrote: And after deep search with large hash and back-tracking to the root, Cfish says 70....Qa4 draws.
This logic is flawed as there are much more drawing lines than winning lines in chess. The draw margin is very high. Also (3) and (4) are contradictory - if you assume that a position that cannot be proven to be a win or loss is a draw (see 3) then you can shorten the path considerably and stop right there. While if you claim a position is winning you have to present the complete line from that position to a known win (or sufficent high eval). Also (2) is generally not true as there might not be a true winning line. And (3) is quite biased isn't it?!Guenther wrote: Simple logic tells you are right.
1. We always start at a position which has an unknown result, otherwise it would be useless
2. On the way of the analyis we find win/loss lines
3. As long as we cannot find/prove win/loss lines we still have to assume a draw
4. This means we have to go a much longer path for proving a draw
Thorsten...mclane wrote:It's unimportant if az has search, NN or masturbates to find the move.
It can even watch out the stars in the sky .
Stockfish had no idea how to find a way out of the mud, AZ pulled stockfish in.
(I remember a time when Chess System Tal did the same strategy with genius, fritz, Mchess. This was very similar and funny to watch on the autoplayers. )
The whole thing would not have been better if there was Houdini or Komodo as opponent.
These 3 variants are so similar that there is nearly no difference between them.
In 100 games the best stockfish could afford was a draw.
The fact that stockfish alpha beta search needs 58 Plies to find a move shows the
reason it finds no way out.
It's ineffective.
It was effective enough to make 10 Elo more then Komodo, and Komodo 10 Elo better than Houdini, or vice versa. But the incest on top of the rating lists is a bluff.
The bluff is that these 10 Elo mean the program is BETTER when in fact it is better against the other equal programs.
In the moment a foreigner comes into the group, the whole Elo progress idea gets
Ruined.
Now you can continue insulting.
It's a paradigm shift.
OK. So Cfish says:jdart wrote:To clarify: it means the move was selected as of depth 58, it doesn't mean it was not selected at earlier depths. This is from the ChessBase online book, which only shows the last result, not the whole search history.
--Jon
Code: Select all
info depth 60 seldepth 94 multipv 1 score cp 265 nodes 1539816502751 nps 42005352 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 time 36657626 pv c1g5 f7f5 g4f4 b7c5 g5e7 c5e6 f4d6 f5e4 e7f8 a6d3 a1d1 h7f5 f8e7 a7a5 e1e3 h8g8 d1e1 e6c5 f2f3 f5e6 f3e4 d3c4 d6e6 c4e6 e7c5 b6c5 e3a3 g8f8 e4e5 a8a7 b2b3 f8e7 a3a4 c5c4 b3c4 e6g4 c4c5 g4h5 g1f2 h5f7 e1b1 a7a8 f2e3 f7d5 g2e4 d5f7 e3d4 f7e6 d4c3 e6f7 b1b2 f7e6 c3d4 e7f7 b2f2 f7e8 e4g6 e8e7 d4e3 a8a7 f2b2 a7a8 b2b6 e6g8 b6b7 g8d5 e3d4 e7e6 b7b2 e6e7 g6e4
I have previously run this with full MPV and gave up after about 4 hours and about 50 depth. SF8 does not see Bg5 as best move. From someone else's test I know it only sees it as best move at 59 ply which you are confirming.zullil wrote:OK. So Cfish says:jdart wrote:To clarify: it means the move was selected as of depth 58, it doesn't mean it was not selected at earlier depths. This is from the ChessBase online book, which only shows the last result, not the whole search history.
--JonEnding search there.Code: Select all
info depth 60 seldepth 94 multipv 1 score cp 265 nodes 1539816502751 nps 42005352 hashfull 999 tbhits 0 time 36657626 pv c1g5 f7f5 g4f4 b7c5 g5e7 c5e6 f4d6 f5e4 e7f8 a6d3 a1d1 h7f5 f8e7 a7a5 e1e3 h8g8 d1e1 e6c5 f2f3 f5e6 f3e4 d3c4 d6e6 c4e6 e7c5 b6c5 e3a3 g8f8 e4e5 a8a7 b2b3 f8e7 a3a4 c5c4 b3c4 e6g4 c4c5 g4h5 g1f2 h5f7 e1b1 a7a8 f2e3 f7d5 g2e4 d5f7 e3d4 f7e6 d4c3 e6f7 b1b2 f7e6 c3d4 e7f7 b2f2 f7e8 e4g6 e8e7 d4e3 a8a7 f2b2 a7a8 b2b6 e6g8 b6b7 g8d5 e3d4 e7e6 b7b2 e6e7 g6e4
I have not tested Stockfish 8 on this position. As I showed, the latest Cfish found Bg5 at depth 45, after about 20 minutes. Of course, since it used 20 threads, that search was highly non-deterministic. I have no idea how many nodes a single-threaded Cfish would need to find this move.Spacious_Mind wrote: SF8 does not see Bg5 as best move. From someone else's test I know it only sees it as best move at 59 ply which you are confirming.
Henk,Henk wrote:Are they going to discuss next few years about these scarce alpha zero games that were published. Alpha zero does not play anymore or not. So it is a dead engine.