What about this game from the tournament? https://www.iccf.com/game?id=974017
Black played solidly but lost. I haven't analysed the game with an engine, but I would assume it would useless to do it anyway without a few days of work
I think you are overestimating correspondence players. 41...a5 is a blunder that losses and SF shows it in like 5 seconds (and you need another 10 to get decisive eval). 41...a6 produces 0.00 eval at depth 50. Maybe it was a misclick during move entry.
The game would be a good example assuming both players used good hardware to make their moves (which I am unable to say, surely 41th move suggests black wasn't checking things with a computer too carefully or just misclicked a move).
What about this game from the tournament? https://www.iccf.com/game?id=974017
Black played solidly but lost. I haven't analysed the game with an engine, but I would assume it would useless to do it anyway without a few days of work
I think you are overestimating correspondence players. 41...a5 is a blunder that losses and SF shows it in like 5 seconds (and you need another 10 to get decisive eval). 41...a6 produces 0.00 eval at depth 50. Maybe it was a misclick during move entry.
The game would be a good example assuming both players used good hardware to make their moves (which I am unable to say, surely 41th move suggests black wasn't checking things with a computer too carefully or just misclicked a move).
A good example of a player "giving away" a point. More difficult to excuse even, due to the amount of time they have, over at ICCF.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:30 pm
Note that stockfish with many cores is not determinsitic so you have no way to find a single winning line that you can use to win against it.
You don't need it, all you need to do is leading Stockfish to a position that it misevaluates, then it doesn't matter exactly what moves it plays, because it'll eventually lose.
But anyway, let's assume that I'm wrong, then this statement would be true:
In the strongest hardware available, Stockfish 11 at 5 days/move is able to produce perfect chess and never lose.
Okay then, so what's the minimum time that Stockfish 11 needs to do that? Is 1 day/move enough? Is 12 hours enough? 3 hours/move? I hold that there's no way that at 3 hours/game it can do it, but if it can, we should be able to figure out exactly at what point the exponential nature of chess is overcome.
Uri Blass wrote: ↑Mon Jan 20, 2020 1:30 pm
Note that stockfish with many cores is not determinsitic so you have no way to find a single winning line that you can use to win against it.
You don't need it, all you need to do is leading Stockfish to a position that it misevaluates, then it doesn't matter exactly what moves it plays, because it'll eventually lose.
But anyway, let's assume that I'm wrong, then this statement would be true:
In the strongest hardware available, Stockfish 11 at 5 days/move is able to produce perfect chess and never lose.
Okay then, so what's the minimum time that Stockfish 11 needs to do that? Is 1 day/move enough? Is 12 hours enough? 3 hours/move? I hold that there's no way that at 3 hours/game it can do it, but if it can, we should be able to figure out exactly at what point the exponential nature of chess is overcome.
There are other possibilities.
Maybe stockfish can lose at 5 days per move but humans cannot practically find the path to beat it at 5 days/move so a big prize money is not going to help.
Then the question becomes what's the fastest time control where a human (helped by cumputers) can still practically find moves that defeat Stockfish. The main idea here is that Stockfish is limited in time, but the human has unlimited time to find the moves.
