Thank you, Louis, first two moves transpose to my corresponding line from here again, http://www.talkchess.com/forum/posting. ... e&p=746805
, then leading to a very similar rook- ending like mine was after exchange of Queens.
Backward lets keep 0.00 in hash quickly till 73.Qc7+, where your output- line starts to differ from mine,
mclane wrote:Cool. 58 plies alpha beta to see something AZ saw in 1‘ ?!
I admire your ignorance. When ppl who never had a contact with certain field have no clue about it, that can be understood. However, when someone who spent his whole life in one field essentially has no clue about it, that only shows that he's really not a very bright person.
UCT without rollouts is way more selective than alpha-beta, meaning that depth that A0 reached with 80k sims/s was most probably noticeably larger than of SF with 70Mnps.
But what I am writing is hopeless coz you didn't even understand that A0 is using search. Based on what you wrote up there, you are clearly thinking that A0 has only NN eval .
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.
What seems like a fairy tale today may be reality tomorrow.
Here we have a fairy tale of the day after tomorrow....
SF8 if you play the next 10 moves of the game forward and follow them you will see SF8 should really have found Bg5 as best move at ply 26 or 27 if I recall when I tried it.
Same with pretty much all the other test positions that I tried. Each one of them should have been found in less than 30 ply.
Since I am not a chess programmer I can only surmise that SF8 and all the other modern programs nowadays cut off other interesting chess move alternatives in their search decisions too soon and therefore don't see the obvious anymore.
Pretty much in my opinion all that A0 has to do is let SF8 play against itself and beat itself every time by sending FENs to each of its 1024 threads and let them search about 18 deep. Keep repeating that about 10 ply deep and you pretty much find every move in 60 seconds and less than 30 ply deep. ie... 10 ply deep repeated fen shots plus 18 ply = 28 ply and pretty much everyone one of these moves are found by SF8 without having to search 59 ply.
To find something in 59 plies that should be found in 28 plies suggests that there are some major gaps in how searches behave today in programs.
If you act like a correspondence player and manually click through the moves you will see how SF finds these moves much quicker than 59 moves.
