Network 320x24.T13-swa-273000 was posted in the Lc0 group at discord.com
I assume that for each of your 18 positions, he's given you best move and evaluation (= 100 * probability of win??) from two different nets.
I removed one net to simplify the list.
If e5 is the best move then why is probability of win less than g3, Bd3, e4, h4, d5, Nc3, e4 (again?) and dxc5? Wouldn't dxc5 be best?
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.
zullil wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 6:06 pm
I assume that for each of your 18 positions, he's given you best move and evaluation (= 100 * probability of win??) from two different nets.
No.
For each of the moves in the list, the computer evaluation and the actual outcomes from real games disagree.
When the move played by the computer is performed, the outcomes are not as good as when the best move (as a functionality of the probability of winning) is played.
This is actually a very rare occurrence when the depths are greater than 36 plies.
For twenty years now, I have been refining my database by looking for positions with the above metric, and then searching deeper.
Almost invariably, the correct move gets found. This particular batch had already survived many cycles.
I think we may be arriving at a point where my technique no longer works as reliably as it used to.
I think it is still a good idea, especially when the searches are shallow (less than 36 ply). But a high percentage of the "obviously wrong" positions have already been corrected, so of those that remain, maybe they are not really obviously wrong.
I think some wires are crossed. What you quoted above was my explaining to you what Max's numbers meant. He later confirmed that my explanation was correct.
Network 320x24.T13-swa-273000 was posted in the Lc0 group at discord.com
I assume that for each of your 18 positions, he's given you best move and evaluation (= 100 * probability of win??) from two different nets.
I removed one net to simplify the list.
If e5 is the best move then why is probability of win less than g3, Bd3, e4, h4, d5, Nc3, e4 (again?) and dxc5? Wouldn't dxc5 be best?
Dann,
He analyzed all 18 of your positions. That's the 1-18.!
Here, I suppose that the stats are probably wrong.
rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/2P5/2N5/PP1PPPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - bm Nf3; pv Nf3; c0 "Engine Statistical";
rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/2P5/2N5/PP1PPPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - bm e4; pv e4 d5; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/2P5/2N5/PP1PPPPP/R1BQKBNR w KQkq - bm e4; pv e4 d5; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
Not sure what to think about this one:
rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/2P5/5N2/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm Nc3; pv Nc3 d5; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/2P5/5N2/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm d4; pv d4 d5; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/4pn2/8/2P5/5N2/PP1PPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm g3; pv g3; c0 "Engine Statistical";
Here, I suppose that the stats are probably wrong:
rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/3P4/2P5/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm c5; pv c5 d5; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/3P4/2P5/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm c5; pv c5 e3; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/3P4/2P5/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm g6; pv g6; c0 "Engine Statistical";
Here, I suppose that Stockfish probably wrong:
rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/8/5N2/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm b3; pv b3 c5; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/8/5N2/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm c4; pv c4 e6; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkb1r/pppppppp/5n2/8/8/5N2/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm c4; pv c4; c0 "Engine Statistical";
Not sure what to think about this one:
rnbqkbnr/1pp1pppp/p7/3p4/3P4/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm Bg5; pv Bg5; c0 "Engine Statistical";
rnbqkbnr/1pp1pppp/p7/3p4/3P4/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm c4; pv c4 dxc4; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkbnr/1pp1pppp/p7/3p4/3P4/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm g3; pv g3 c6; c0 "Engine LC0";
Here, I suppose that the stats are probably wrong:
rnbqkbnr/1ppp1ppp/p3p3/8/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - bm Bd3; pv Bd3 d5; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkbnr/1ppp1ppp/p3p3/8/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - bm Bd3; pv Bd3 d5; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkbnr/1ppp1ppp/p3p3/8/3PP3/8/PPP2PPP/RNBQKBNR w KQkq - bm Nf3; pv Nf3; c0 "Engine Statistical";
Here, I suppose that Stockfish probably wrong:
rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/2P5/3P4/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm Bb4+; pv Bb4+ Bd2; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/2P5/3P4/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm Nf6; pv Nf6 Nf3; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkbnr/pppp1ppp/8/4p3/2P5/3P4/PP2PPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm Nf6; pv Nf6; c0 "Engine Statistical";
Here, I suppose that the stats are probably wrong:
rnbqkbnr/ppppp2p/6p1/5p2/3P4/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm Nc3; pv Nc3 Nf6; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkbnr/ppppp2p/6p1/5p2/3P4/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm Nc3; pv Nc3 Nf6; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkbnr/ppppp2p/6p1/5p2/3P4/5N2/PPP1PPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - bm g3; pv g3; c0 "Engine Statistical";
Here, I suppose that the stats are probably wrong:
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/P7/8/1PPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm Nf6; pv Nf6 d4; c0 "Engine LC0";
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/P7/8/1PPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm Nf6; pv Nf6; c0 "Engine Stockfish";
rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/P7/8/1PPPPPPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - bm e5; pv e5; c0 "Engine Statistical";
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.
zullil wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:47 am
I'm still wondering about what you mean by "get it wrong" and "find the answer." After 1. a4, probably every move (except 1...b5, perhaps) likely draws with perfect play. I don't understand what you hope to determine from any number of human games that opened 1. a4. Probably every one of those games that was decided was decided by multiple inaccuracies or outright errors.
It sounds like you believe that 1. a4 e5 loses with perfect play. I guess I simply doubt this.
No, I have a statistical lead for black of one pawn after 1.a4 e5, based off of w/l/d statistics
zullil wrote: ↑Wed Jun 26, 2019 11:47 am
I'm still wondering about what you mean by "get it wrong" and "find the answer." After 1. a4, probably every move (except 1...b5, perhaps) likely draws with perfect play. I don't understand what you hope to determine from any number of human games that opened 1. a4. Probably every one of those games that was decided was decided by multiple inaccuracies or outright errors.
It sounds like you believe that 1. a4 e5 loses with perfect play. I guess I simply doubt this.
No, I have a statistical lead for black of one pawn after 1.a4 e5, based off of w/l/d statistics
Well, if after a 55 ply search the outcome doesn't match the OTB w/l/d statistics, chances are that humans rather the computers don't understand the position.
On the other hand, Dann you seem to be pretty convinced that this position could be an exception. Why don't you try to drive the engine search starting from 1)..e5? I mean, if you know of a reasonable plan for black starting from this move, you could prime lots of beta-cutoffs during the analysis, ultimately pushing the search beyond the horizon. You could do this in more sessions by saving the hash table or using tools like IDEA. If you don't know af any plan to apply, may be you could get some inspiration from the games whose statistics you are referring to.
giovanni wrote: ↑Thu Jun 27, 2019 12:40 pm
Why don't you try to drive the engine search starting from 1)..e5? I mean, if you know of a reasonable plan for black starting from this move, you could prime lots of beta-cutoffs during the analysis, ultimately pushing the search beyond the horizon. You could do this in more sessions by saving the hash table or using tools like IDEA. If you don't know af any plan to apply, may be you could get some inspiration from the games whose statistics you are referring to.
Yes. The true score of a position doesn't come from w/l/d statistics, because w/l/d statistics are built from suboptimal moves. The true score of a position comes from a tree where the main moves are played until "the end" (a leaf node), in a critical line where deviation from it produces a worse score (for either side, so that a side can't improve their play over this critical line), where you reach Depth 55 at the leaf node (or produce w/l/d statistics from this position), not at the root! And this produces a score, and this score is backsolved to the root.
In practice, over time the critical line keeps changing, and the most important lines get refuted. So that in this position, I'd expect that at some point 1...e5 and 1...d5 would have the same "true score". I think Dann Corbit could test the value of his approach by playing a game against a strong chess opponent, who could probably play into a position where Dann's "true score" of the leaf node is great for him, but in reality Dann is in a lost position. At least, if we played a game, I'm sure I'd not have problems holding the white side of 1.a4 e5 against Dann.
Your beliefs create your reality, so be careful what you wish for.
What you quoted above was my explaining to you what Max's numbers meant. He later confirmed that my explanation was correct.