Rebel wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:19 am
There is no fun in that kind of competition.
People find enjoyment in being the best in something that is hard, and believe me, making a book that is the best today is really hard, the competition is fierce and people are coming up with books that destroy everything in the past and get really though when anything else (not from 2 weeks from the future) tries to beat them.
Opening theory is making the fastest progress I've ever seen (like, did you know white's Giuoco Piano has been busted? By black? That's amazing! I can beat in my 10 years old computer someone with the latest thing if they play the Italian as white) and people are missing it because they want "variety" (even though what they call variety, I call "irrelevant, weak, suboptimal chess lines".)
I agree with you. Many of us are subconsciously searching for the solution to chess (optimal play).
Can you point me to the direction I can find the refutation of the Italian game by white? What are the books I can download or what are the lines by black that refute white?
h1a8 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:59 pmCan you point me to the direction I can find the refutation of the Italian game by white? What are the books I can download or what are the lines by black that refute white?
Sorry, I'm contending and I'm planning to buy a decent GPU by the end of August, so the less this is known about, the better. But these are positions that are won for black that Stockfish gives wrong white advantage. This is the reason people have switched to 1.d4 (black has equalized the Spanish too) or 1.c4 (that is unexplored terrain by comparison.)
Maybe I'm exaggerating things, since by "busted" I just mean black can secure an advantage that is bigger than white's advantage from the opening position (not like the Italian loses for white or anything). But I think these developments have been kept secret since May 2019 or so, my whole point was the rapid development of opening theory when you focus on the best lines and improve them (as these book makers are doing) instead of playing generic openings or producing books that play "varied", because when you're against someone that seriously wants to beat you, how engines perform in such varied openings is irrelevant.
AFAIK Italian's "refutation" has only been featured in private books, and it's completely useless if everyone just marks Bc4 red, but now I look at everyone as potential opponents, so if someone finds about it I hope it's because they do their homework (like I did) and not because they copied and pasted a line into their book.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I wonder what surprises opening development has in store for us in the following months, and how many people will know about them (chess as a competition has people not wanting others to know, by its very nature), but main lines are dying like flies, entire ECO codes that were played a lot turn out to be bad but people played wrong moves like parrots, Stockfish at depth 30 giving 0.00 scores to completely lost positions, positions I analyzed to death years ago and was certain moves were !! have needed to be adjusted to !? more than ever. These are the most exciting times I've seen on opening analysis and I'm just glad engines and Leela continue to suck at it. But if the most played moves in some openings are turning out to be losing, what can be expected from garbage lines? Varied openings and using them to decide what engine is best must die.
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
h1a8 wrote: ↑Sat Jun 22, 2019 11:59 pmCan you point me to the direction I can find the refutation of the Italian game by white? What are the books I can download or what are the lines by black that refute white?
Sorry, I'm contending and I'm planning to buy a decent GPU by the end of August, so the less this is known about, the better. But these are positions that are won for black that Stockfish gives wrong white advantage. This is the reason people have switched to 1.d4 (black has equalized the Spanish too) or 1.c4 (that is unexplored terrain by comparison.)
Maybe I'm exaggerating things, since by "busted" I just mean black can secure an advantage that is bigger than white's advantage from the opening position (not like the Italian loses for white or anything). But I think these developments have been kept secret since May 2019 or so, my whole point was the rapid development of opening theory when you focus on the best lines and improve them (as these book makers are doing) instead of playing generic openings or producing books that play "varied", because when you're against someone that seriously wants to beat you, how engines perform in such varied openings is irrelevant.
AFAIK Italian's "refutation" has only been featured in private books, and it's completely useless if everyone just marks Bc4 red, but now I look at everyone as potential opponents, so if someone finds about it I hope it's because they do their homework (like I did) and not because they copied and pasted a line into their book.
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I wonder what surprises opening development has in store for us in the following months, and how many people will know about them (chess as a competition has people not wanting others to know, by its very nature), but main lines are dying like flies, entire ECO codes that were played a lot turn out to be bad but people played wrong moves like parrots, Stockfish at depth 30 giving 0.00 scores to completely lost positions, positions I analyzed to death years ago and was certain moves were !! have needed to be adjusted to !? more than ever. These are the most exciting times I've seen on opening analysis and I'm just glad engines and Leela continue to suck at it. But if the most played moves in some openings are turning out to be losing, what can be expected from garbage lines? Varied openings and using them to decide what engine is best must die.
I wonder what are the most popular lines in games between humans that turned out to be losing lines and what is the basis for the confidence that they are losing lines.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:33 pm
I wonder what are the most popular lines in games between humans that turned out to be losing lines and what is the basis for the confidence that they are losing lines.
I would say that these are all pretty good candidates:
They are all played frequently, and at the position in question, we are at least a full pawn ahead both in terms of computer analysis and in terms of actual game outcomes.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 7:33 pm
I wonder what are the most popular lines in games between humans that turned out to be losing lines and what is the basis for the confidence that they are losing lines.
I would say that these are all pretty good candidates:
They are all played frequently, and at the position in question, we are at least a full pawn ahead both in terms of computer analysis and in terms of actual game outcomes.
For the first one I do not think that 1.e4 g5 is played frequently(g5 is a very rare reply against e4)
same for the second one (1.e4 g5 2.d4)
I also do not see how the third position is based on a popular line
This line can be achieved from one of the following openings:
1. e4 Nc6 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. d4 d5 4. e5 Ne4(1...Nc6 is more than 50 times less common than c5 so relatively not a popular line)
1. e4 Nc6 2. d4 d5 3. Nc3 Nf6 4. e5 Ne4(same as 1)
1. e4 Nf6 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. d4 d5 4. e5 Ne4(2...Nc6 is more than 50 times less common than 2...d5 so relatively not a popular line)
1. d4 d5 2. Nc3 Nc6 3. e4 Nf6 4. e5 Ne4 (2.Nc3 is more than 50 times less common than 2.c4, 2...Nc6 is more than 40 times less common than 2...Nf6)
After filtering for weak entrants, I have more than 500 games for each of these lines.
Now, sometimes frequency is misrepresented because correspondence players love quirky openings.
Sometimes frequency is misrepresented because of thematic tournaments.
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.
Uri Blass wrote:what is the basis for the confidence that they are losing lines.
I have an ancient 4core machine from 2010 and have been using these lines to defeat people in latest 10core ones, being outsearched by 10plies or more, doesn't make any sense to me, unless there are "book wins."
So, to gain confidence that a line is won, all you need to do is simulate this: give the defending side a lot more time in the clock and the attacking side a fraction of that, if the attacking side wins most of the games despite the handicap, you can be confident the line is losing for the other side.
Dann Corbit wrote: ↑Mon Jun 24, 2019 9:55 pmThey are all played frequently, and at the position in question, we are at least a full pawn ahead both in terms of computer analysis and in terms of actual game outcomes.
Yes, there are others where we are like 2 full pawns ahead, but Stockfish shows 0.00 scores, and only Leela knows the truth (interestingly, I haven't seen the opposite). Others where both Stockfish and Leela show scores close to 0.00 but a side is a full pawn ahead, and others where both show a side with decent advantage, but the truth is the other side has it (when you get your hands in a private book that plays a very long line where the opponent is left with +0.50 scores according to your opponent and you, and you are left scratching your head, and don't want to play this line again, but as the game progresses the tables are turned, and you win. Scores were just wrong.)
[Note: I have noticed that everything I talk about has been Stockfish/Leela-centric. It's possible Houdini or Komodo, or other weaker engines don't show this behavior in these positions, or manage to save the losing lines that Stockfish misplays. First generic openings are used to decide these 2 are the best, then their results on the most critical chess lines is used to decide if the lines are good. Hopefully their distance from third best is big enough that Stockfish/Leela would remain best no matter what openings you used to test them]
Bottom line: if you want to know the truth about all these chess lines, contend yourself. Whenever your opponent will do anything they can to defeat you, they will bring the best that they have, so you can play your favorite Najdorf defense or Marshall-CounterAttack and see it busted and lose, with a line you probably had no idea existed. All your opponent needs is a big incentive to defeat you. This is the only part I miss about the WCCC, and why I hope something in the future is put on that tests chess entities (to know what is the strongest chess entity) that includes a private tournament book that has its lines kept secret (like humans do.)
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
Rebel wrote: ↑Wed Jun 19, 2019 1:19 am
There is no fun in that kind of competition.
People find enjoyment in being the best in something that is hard, and believe me, making a book that is the best today is really hard, the competition is fierce and people are coming up with books that destroy everything in the past and get really though when anything else (not from 2 weeks from the future) tries to beat them.
Opening theory is making the fastest progress I've ever seen (like, did you know white's Giuoco Piano has been busted? By black? That's amazing! I can beat in my 10 years old computer someone with the latest thing if they play the Italian as white) and people are missing it because they want "variety" (even though what they call variety, I call "irrelevant, weak, suboptimal chess lines".)
Being the best when other do not know about it is not fun and I have no idea who make the best opening book and I have no idea about games who prove the claim that somebody make the best private books.
I read claims that white's Giuoco Piano has been busted but do not know where to find games to show that black get the advantage.
The claim that 1.e4 e5 2.Qf3 is good for white also seems strange for me because I know no strong human players who play this opening.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 3:57 pmThe claim that 1.e4 e5 2.Qf3 is good for white also seems strange for me because I know no strong human players who play this opening.
2.Qf3 is a bad move because it sins against about all the opening rules and gives away the advantage of the first move. Nevertheless 1) it doesn't lose and 2) if you build a lot book analysis around it black may easily drawn in the defences on this for him unknown area.
90% of coding is debugging, the other 10% is writing bugs.
I do not see the point of claiming that Giuoco Piano has been busted when people do not give specific lines.
If the target is to beat other players then it is better to say nothing because now I believe people are going to use stockfish and lc0 to analyze 1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 and share their analysis.
I do not have a gpu and I do not have a fast computer so I analyzed only with stockfish when I do not see advantage for black after
1.e4 e5 2.Nf3 Nc6 3.Bc4 inspite of analyzing with default contempt that mean I can expect advantage for black even in an equal position.
I admit that I did not give stockfish a lot of time and also used an old computer.
Maybe another person in this forum is going to use better hardware and maybe lc0 to give a better analysis.
Note that you can analyze also with multi-pv in order to decide about lines that you want to extend.
[d]r1bqkbnr/pppp1ppp/2n5/4p3/2B1P3/5N2/PPPP1PPP/RNBQK2R b KQkq - 3 3
