Stockfish NNUE style

[mwyoung]

So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.

Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.

So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.

I fully agree!

The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).

MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.

So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.

No.

Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.

I am still open to the question!

When does tactics end, and positional play began?

maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies

Educate me.

This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.

"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"

You need to do much better!

Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.

Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!

The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...

2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....

"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"

I am still waiting.

See above. At FIDE 2150 or so.

Ok, Chris says a 2150 elo player has the "positional undersanding of the SF 12" I give this latest game as an example of his foolishness!. I really great game by Stockfish 12. Even high level masters were confused.

[pgn][Event "Chess Tournament 200 rounds, 09/03/2020"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.09.06"]
[Round "1.17"]
[White "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Stockfish 040920"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A28"]
[PlyCount "97"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]
[TimeControl "900+15"]

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 {A28: English, four knights, 4.e3} Be7 5.
Qb3 O-O 6. d3 a5 {End of opening} 7. Be2 {69.00/0 2106805911} a4 {110.09/0
2267424783} 8. Nxa4 {19.09/0 626509486} d5 {12.07/0 288059106} 9. O-O {0.05/27
6.6 210597146} dxc4 {22.00/0 492419058} 10. dxc4 {30.04/0 955610108} e4 {
19.02/0 437322799} 11. Nd2 {0.10/29 7.8 249013390} Bf5 {18.01/0 394755594} 12.
Nc3 {51.01/0 1588709500} Ne5 {42.03/0 912781354} 13. Qxb7 {19.01/0 598479625}
Rb8 {14.03/0 338379137} 14. Qa7 {48.09/0 1578178469} Bb4 {18.00/0 427744534}
15. Rd1 {54.07/0 1777836789} Qc8 {31.00/0 747156102} 16. Qa4 {29.01/0 958495050
} Bxc3 {18.04/0 459041309} 17. bxc3 {0.00/38 6.4 216381212} c5 {26.02/0
639695927} 18. Nf1 {39.00/0 1301146095} Ra8 {22.02/0 570878189} 19. Qb3 {
32.05/0 1110358527} Ra6 {36.09/0 916380047} 20. Ng3 {27.01/0 915368009} Bd7 {
19.09/0 506598911} 21. Qb1 {49.09/0 1656605627} Qa8 {22.06/0 579805921} 22. Rd2
{36.07/0 1232416900} h5 {28.08/0 717311200} 23. h4 {82.05/0 2766791481} Rb8 {
20.09/0 584295515} 24. Rb2 {62.02/0 2169031404} Rxb2 {26.01/0 731394253} 25.
Qxb2 {-0.50/30 6.2 223201852} Bg4 {22.03/0 613198680} 26. Bf1 {28.07/0
991965796} Ng6 {33.04/0 904498793} 27. Bd2 {95.09/0 3324609863} Nxh4 {22.09/0
635214103} 28. Be1 {100.00/0 3506620576} Ng6 {22.09/0 643141588} 29. Ne2 {
15.09/0 575675595} Ne5 {51.00/0 1452525012} 30. Nf4 {160.02/0 5747163843} Qc8 {
26.09/0 794716448} 31. Rb1 {32.08/0 1169558328} Kh7 {22.08/0 662688464} 32. a3
{34.08/0 1279012715} Qf5 {25.06/0 756879608} 33. Qb8 {99.04/0 3526068575} Nfd7
{34.06/0 1084544059} 34. Qd8 {28.08/0 1028491096} Rxa3 {21.09/0 722070310} 35.
Nd5 {29.00/0 1068020894} Ng6 {23.03/0 807356643} 36. Qc7 {-3.95/29 3.3
133471872} Ra2 {28.07/0 1011193067} 37. Qg3 {47.07/0 1767845222} h4 {36.06/0
1370200740} 38. Qh2 {21.09/0 843318995} Nde5 {34.04/0 1300036950} 39. Nf4 {
-4.85/35 5.8 230340716} Nxf4 {21.07/0 893553385} 40. Qxf4 {26.06/0 1089681000}
g5 {40.01/0 1727163705} 41. Qxf5+ {15.00/0 626926922} Bxf5 {20.08/0 932978886}
42. Kh2 {15.00/0 623639684} f6 {20.08/0 938065352} 43. Rd1 {-5.94/34 7.1
290212620} Kg6 {28.00/0 1250761455} 44. Rc1 {22.09/0 972572942} Bg4 {47.08/0
2351628800} 45. Kh1 {-5.99/35 9.6 404887736} Be2 {22.06/0 1149987047} 46. Kg1 {
20.04/0 893867592} Nd3 {22.09/0 1137370529} 47. Rb1 {15.00/0 667467412} Bxf1 {
21.01/0 1325711386} 48. Kxf1 {15.00/0 668110259} g4 {20.08/0 1395914214} 49.
Rd1 {15.00/0 adjudication by engines' scores -128.31/35 702579981} 0-1

[/pgn]

[mwyoung]

So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.

Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.

So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.

I fully agree!

The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).

MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.

So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.

No.

Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.

I am still open to the question!

When does tactics end, and positional play began?

maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies

Educate me.

This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.

"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"

You need to do much better!

Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.

Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!

The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...

2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....

"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"

I am still waiting.

See above. At FIDE 2150 or so.

Ok, Chris says a 2150 elo player has the "positional undersanding" of SF 12. I give this latest game as an example of his foolishness!. I really great game by Stockfish 12. Even high level masters were confused along with Stockfish 8. That is better then any human that has ever lived.

[pgn][Event "Chess Tournament 200 rounds, 09/03/2020"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.09.06"]
[Round "1.17"]
[White "Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT"]
[Black "Stockfish 040920"]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A28"]
[PlyCount "97"]
[EventDate "2020.??.??"]
[TimeControl "900+15"]

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 {A28: English, four knights, 4.e3} Be7 5.
Qb3 O-O 6. d3 a5 {End of opening} 7. Be2 {69.00/0 2106805911} a4 {110.09/0
2267424783} 8. Nxa4 {19.09/0 626509486} d5 {12.07/0 288059106} 9. O-O {0.05/27
6.6 210597146} dxc4 {22.00/0 492419058} 10. dxc4 {30.04/0 955610108} e4 {
19.02/0 437322799} 11. Nd2 {0.10/29 7.8 249013390} Bf5 {18.01/0 394755594} 12.
Nc3 {51.01/0 1588709500} Ne5 {42.03/0 912781354} 13. Qxb7 {19.01/0 598479625}
Rb8 {14.03/0 338379137} 14. Qa7 {48.09/0 1578178469} Bb4 {18.00/0 427744534}
15. Rd1 {54.07/0 1777836789} Qc8 {31.00/0 747156102} 16. Qa4 {29.01/0 958495050
} Bxc3 {18.04/0 459041309} 17. bxc3 {0.00/38 6.4 216381212} c5 {26.02/0
639695927} 18. Nf1 {39.00/0 1301146095} Ra8 {22.02/0 570878189} 19. Qb3 {
32.05/0 1110358527} Ra6 {36.09/0 916380047} 20. Ng3 {27.01/0 915368009} Bd7 {
19.09/0 506598911} 21. Qb1 {49.09/0 1656605627} Qa8 {22.06/0 579805921} 22. Rd2
{36.07/0 1232416900} h5 {28.08/0 717311200} 23. h4 {82.05/0 2766791481} Rb8 {
20.09/0 584295515} 24. Rb2 {62.02/0 2169031404} Rxb2 {26.01/0 731394253} 25.
Qxb2 {-0.50/30 6.2 223201852} Bg4 {22.03/0 613198680} 26. Bf1 {28.07/0
991965796} Ng6 {33.04/0 904498793} 27. Bd2 {95.09/0 3324609863} Nxh4 {22.09/0
635214103} 28. Be1 {100.00/0 3506620576} Ng6 {22.09/0 643141588} 29. Ne2 {
15.09/0 575675595} Ne5 {51.00/0 1452525012} 30. Nf4 {160.02/0 5747163843} Qc8 {
26.09/0 794716448} 31. Rb1 {32.08/0 1169558328} Kh7 {22.08/0 662688464} 32. a3
{34.08/0 1279012715} Qf5 {25.06/0 756879608} 33. Qb8 {99.04/0 3526068575} Nfd7
{34.06/0 1084544059} 34. Qd8 {28.08/0 1028491096} Rxa3 {21.09/0 722070310} 35.
Nd5 {29.00/0 1068020894} Ng6 {23.03/0 807356643} 36. Qc7 {-3.95/29 3.3
133471872} Ra2 {28.07/0 1011193067} 37. Qg3 {47.07/0 1767845222} h4 {36.06/0
1370200740} 38. Qh2 {21.09/0 843318995} Nde5 {34.04/0 1300036950} 39. Nf4 {
-4.85/35 5.8 230340716} Nxf4 {21.07/0 893553385} 40. Qxf4 {26.06/0 1089681000}
g5 {40.01/0 1727163705} 41. Qxf5+ {15.00/0 626926922} Bxf5 {20.08/0 932978886}
42. Kh2 {15.00/0 623639684} f6 {20.08/0 938065352} 43. Rd1 {-5.94/34 7.1
290212620} Kg6 {28.00/0 1250761455} 44. Rc1 {22.09/0 972572942} Bg4 {47.08/0
2351628800} 45. Kh1 {-5.99/35 9.6 404887736} Be2 {22.06/0 1149987047} 46. Kg1 {
20.04/0 893867592} Nd3 {22.09/0 1137370529} 47. Rb1 {15.00/0 667467412} Bxf1 {
21.01/0 1325711386} 48. Kxf1 {15.00/0 668110259} g4 {20.08/0 1395914214} 49.
Rd1 {15.00/0 adjudication by engines' scores -128.31/35 702579981} 0-1

[/pgn]

[chrisw]

So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.

Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.

So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.

I fully agree!

The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).

MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.

So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.

No.

Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.

I am still open to the question!

When does tactics end, and positional play began?

maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies

Educate me.

This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.

"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"

You need to do much better!

Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.

Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!

The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...

2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....

"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"

I am still waiting.

See above. At FIDE 2150 or so.

Ok, Chris says a 2150 elo player has the "positional undersanding of the SF 12"

Que?! Ah, You were interpreting the FIDE 2150 as applying to chess engines? Tactical and positional play are human constructs. They are an attempt to describe a human process of playing, or more exactly, thinking. The FIDE 2150 is referring to human chess play and human chess thinking processes. Does “at FIDE 2150 or so” make more sense to you now?

I give this latest game as an example of his foolishness!. I really great game by Stockfish 12. Even high level master were confused.

[pgn]Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT
2020.09.06
Stockfish 040920
?
0-1
Chess Tournament 200 rounds, 09/03/2020 (1.17)

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 A28: English, four knights, 4.e3 4... Be7 5. Qb3 O-O 6. d3 a5 End of opening 7. Be2 69.00/0 2106805911 7... a4 110.09/0 2267424783 8. Nxa4 19.09/0 626509486 8... d5 12.07/0 288059106 9. O-O 0.05/27 6.6 210597146 9... dxc4 22.00/0 492419058 10. dxc4 30.04/0 955610108 10... e4 19.02/0 437322799 11. Nd2 0.10/29 7.8 249013390 11... Bf5 18.01/0 394755594 12. Nc3 51.01/0 1588709500 12... Ne5 42.03/0 912781354 13. Qxb7 19.01/0 598479625 13... Rb8 14.03/0 338379137 14. Qa7 48.09/0 1578178469 14... Bb4 18.00/0 427744534 15. Rd1 54.07/0 1777836789 15... Qc8 31.00/0 747156102 16. Qa4 29.01/0 958495050 16... Bxc3 18.04/0 459041309 17. bxc3 0.00/38 6.4 216381212 17... c5 26.02/0 639695927 18. Nf1 39.00/0 1301146095 18... Ra8 22.02/0 570878189 19. Qb3 32.05/0 1110358527 19... Ra6 36.09/0 916380047 20. Ng3 27.01/0 915368009 20... Bd7 19.09/0 506598911 21. Qb1 49.09/0 1656605627 21... Qa8 22.06/0 579805921 22. Rd2 36.07/0 1232416900 22... h5 28.08/0 717311200 23. h4 82.05/0 2766791481 23... Rb8 20.09/0 584295515 24. Rb2 62.02/0 2169031404 24... Rxb2 26.01/0 731394253 25. Qxb2 -0.50/30 6.2 223201852 25... Bg4 22.03/0 613198680 26. Bf1 28.07/0 991965796 26... Ng6 33.04/0 904498793 27. Bd2 95.09/0 3324609863 27... Nxh4 22.09/0 635214103 28. Be1 100.00/0 3506620576 28... Ng6 22.09/0 643141588 29. Ne2 15.09/0 575675595 29... Ne5 51.00/0 1452525012 30. Nf4 160.02/0 5747163843 30... Qc8 26.09/0 794716448 31. Rb1 32.08/0 1169558328 31... Kh7 22.08/0 662688464 32. a3 34.08/0 1279012715 32... Qf5 25.06/0 756879608 33. Qb8 99.04/0 3526068575 33... Nfd7 34.06/0 1084544059 34. Qd8 28.08/0 1028491096 34... Rxa3 21.09/0 722070310 35. Nd5 29.00/0 1068020894 35... Ng6 23.03/0 807356643 36. Qc7 -3.95/29 3.3 133471872 36... Ra2 28.07/0 1011193067 37. Qg3 47.07/0 1767845222 37... h4 36.06/0 1370200740 38. Qh2 21.09/0 843318995 38... Nde5 34.04/0 1300036950 39. Nf4 -4.85/35 5.8 230340716 39... Nxf4 21.07/0 893553385 40. Qxf4 26.06/0 1089681000 40... g5 40.01/0 1727163705 41. Qxf5 15.00/0 626926922 41... Bxf5 20.08/0 932978886 42. Kh2 15.00/0 623639684 42... f6 20.08/0 938065352 43. Rd1 -5.94/34 7.1 290212620 43... Kg6 28.00/0 1250761455 44. Rc1 22.09/0 972572942 44... Bg4 47.08/0 2351628800 45. Kh1 -5.99/35 9.6 404887736 45... Be2 22.06/0 1149987047 46. Kg1 20.04/0 893867592 46... Nd3 22.09/0 1137370529 47. Rb1 15.00/0 667467412 47... Bxf1 21.01/0 1325711386 48. Kxf1 15.00/0 668110259 48... g4 20.08/0 1395914214 49. Rd1 15.00/0 adjudication by engines' scores -128.31/35 702579981[/pgn]

[mwyoung]

So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.

Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.

So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.

I fully agree!

The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).

MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.

So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.

No.

Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.

I am still open to the question!

When does tactics end, and positional play began?

maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies

Educate me.

This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.

"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"

You need to do much better!

Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.

Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!

The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...

2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....

"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"

I am still waiting.

See above. At FIDE 2150 or so.

Ok, Chris says a 2150 elo player has the "positional undersanding of the SF 12"

Que?! Ah, You were interpreting the FIDE 2150 as applying to chess engines? Tactical and positional play are human constructs. They are an attempt to describe a human process of playing, or more exactly, thinking. The FIDE 2150 is referring to human chess play and human chess thinking processes. Does “at FIDE 2150 or so” make more sense to you now?

I give this latest game as an example of his foolishness!. I really great game by Stockfish 12. Even high level master were confused.

[pgn]Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT
2020.09.06
Stockfish 040920
?
0-1
Chess Tournament 200 rounds, 09/03/2020 (1.17)

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 A28: English, four knights, 4.e3 4... Be7 5. Qb3 O-O 6. d3 a5 End of opening 7. Be2 69.00/0 2106805911 7... a4 110.09/0 2267424783 8. Nxa4 19.09/0 626509486 8... d5 12.07/0 288059106 9. O-O 0.05/27 6.6 210597146 9... dxc4 22.00/0 492419058 10. dxc4 30.04/0 955610108 10... e4 19.02/0 437322799 11. Nd2 0.10/29 7.8 249013390 11... Bf5 18.01/0 394755594 12. Nc3 51.01/0 1588709500 12... Ne5 42.03/0 912781354 13. Qxb7 19.01/0 598479625 13... Rb8 14.03/0 338379137 14. Qa7 48.09/0 1578178469 14... Bb4 18.00/0 427744534 15. Rd1 54.07/0 1777836789 15... Qc8 31.00/0 747156102 16. Qa4 29.01/0 958495050 16... Bxc3 18.04/0 459041309 17. bxc3 0.00/38 6.4 216381212 17... c5 26.02/0 639695927 18. Nf1 39.00/0 1301146095 18... Ra8 22.02/0 570878189 19. Qb3 32.05/0 1110358527 19... Ra6 36.09/0 916380047 20. Ng3 27.01/0 915368009 20... Bd7 19.09/0 506598911 21. Qb1 49.09/0 1656605627 21... Qa8 22.06/0 579805921 22. Rd2 36.07/0 1232416900 22... h5 28.08/0 717311200 23. h4 82.05/0 2766791481 23... Rb8 20.09/0 584295515 24. Rb2 62.02/0 2169031404 24... Rxb2 26.01/0 731394253 25. Qxb2 -0.50/30 6.2 223201852 25... Bg4 22.03/0 613198680 26. Bf1 28.07/0 991965796 26... Ng6 33.04/0 904498793 27. Bd2 95.09/0 3324609863 27... Nxh4 22.09/0 635214103 28. Be1 100.00/0 3506620576 28... Ng6 22.09/0 643141588 29. Ne2 15.09/0 575675595 29... Ne5 51.00/0 1452525012 30. Nf4 160.02/0 5747163843 30... Qc8 26.09/0 794716448 31. Rb1 32.08/0 1169558328 31... Kh7 22.08/0 662688464 32. a3 34.08/0 1279012715 32... Qf5 25.06/0 756879608 33. Qb8 99.04/0 3526068575 33... Nfd7 34.06/0 1084544059 34. Qd8 28.08/0 1028491096 34... Rxa3 21.09/0 722070310 35. Nd5 29.00/0 1068020894 35... Ng6 23.03/0 807356643 36. Qc7 -3.95/29 3.3 133471872 36... Ra2 28.07/0 1011193067 37. Qg3 47.07/0 1767845222 37... h4 36.06/0 1370200740 38. Qh2 21.09/0 843318995 38... Nde5 34.04/0 1300036950 39. Nf4 -4.85/35 5.8 230340716 39... Nxf4 21.07/0 893553385 40. Qxf4 26.06/0 1089681000 40... g5 40.01/0 1727163705 41. Qxf5 15.00/0 626926922 41... Bxf5 20.08/0 932978886 42. Kh2 15.00/0 623639684 42... f6 20.08/0 938065352 43. Rd1 -5.94/34 7.1 290212620 43... Kg6 28.00/0 1250761455 44. Rc1 22.09/0 972572942 44... Bg4 47.08/0 2351628800 45. Kh1 -5.99/35 9.6 404887736 45... Be2 22.06/0 1149987047 46. Kg1 20.04/0 893867592 46... Nd3 22.09/0 1137370529 47. Rb1 15.00/0 667467412 47... Bxf1 21.01/0 1325711386 48. Kxf1 15.00/0 668110259 48... g4 20.08/0 1395914214 49. Rd1 15.00/0 adjudication by engines' scores -128.31/35 702579981[/pgn]

"Ah, You were interpreting the FIDE 2150 as applying to chess engines? Tactical and positional play are human constructs."
Yes, and you finally agree with me..... exactly! And Chess is Chess. No matter who or what is playing the game.

[Cornfed]

Educate me.

I should just stay out of the $hit$how...but I think you are after an argument, not 'education'.

[Nordlandia]

The pyramid is soon reaching everest

[carldaman]

So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.

Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.

So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.

I fully agree!

The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).

Right on, Ronald. By luring the opponent into an unbalanced quagmire, more winning chances can be created. It doesn't even have to be a tactical minefield, but even strategic play on the flanks in closed positions that could exploit areas where other engines are weak.

It seems we're still at a stage where the very strongest silicon-based entities [SF-NNUE in particular] are too risk-averse, playing not to lose, emphasizing safety first, while the their vast, superior strength would warrant playing a little less cautiously in order to create more winning chances, (even more so from the Black side).

This only means that there's still a lot of room left on the upside, and that should be no surprise as NNUE is quite new.

[Ovyron]

Interesting observation re: ShashChess 6.1.3 - have you brought it to Andrea's attention?

There's nothing to bring. It's all by design. The things I'm talking about for versions 6.1.3 and earlier were apparently happening because of a bug. All Andrea did was fixing the bug so the module was actually applying Alexander Shashin's theory and not something else.

It's just that when you want different ideas on the position the insanity brought in by the bug was very welcome. Sure, it had more nonsense in there, but it was funny to see the module thinking losing positions were winning. After the bug fix the module knows when a losing position is losing, how boring!

Luckily, as this is a matter of style 6.1.3 is all you need and all further improvements of ShashChess aren't necessary. People wanting to use the Tal/Capablanca/Petrosian module to "find the truth faster" would be better using the bug fixed version.

Also, I would not choose the overused word "blunder", even if it may be technically correct in certain cases.

By "blunder" I mean bad enough moves that bring the 3600 elo back down to 2900 elo level. I claim that the imitate a weak player you SHOULD get rid of the strength.

For instance, suppose there's a very dangerous position, +99.999% of humans would lose it against anybody else (even some weak player) because the advantage is overwhelming. Like, Knight + Pawn extra. However, it can be defended, there's a single line that saves the game and the 3600 elo engine can find it.

So it plays it and saves the game. But we wanted it to mimic the human that would have lost! The Pro Deo engine can already manage to do this. Unfortunately tweaking the settings to make it imitate some player is extremely hard work.

With so few data this may need supervised learning: do the bit of training with that you have, make the NN produce two different games trying to imitate a player as best at it can, have a judging human tell it what's the game that showcases the human's style the closest. As you keep doing this it'll keep learning what this style is about, until all the moves it produces are convincing.

It's called extrapolation, current text prediction AIs can do a great job at it with very few data because they've already learned about tons of writers, so you just give them some paragraph in your writing style, it already knows many writers with similar styles, so it'd just produce more paragraphs in the style it'd extrapolate you'd use.

If Chess NNs were at this level they could create a net that played convincingly like Paul Morphy after you showed them a single game!

[chrisw]

So long as we define perfect chess as chess moves that always achieve the best possible result from a given position (i.e. if it is winning then perfect chess would not fail to win it), there is a ton of room for style while being perfect.

Exploitative play will vary according to the opponent, so even play that provides the best chances for a non-perfect player to lose will vary. The move that best trips Kasparov may very well not be the best move to trip Karpov after all.

So assuming that the starting position is a draw objectively, all the moves and plays that do not sacrifice this can easily be chaotic madness, or quiet maneuvering.

I fully agree!

The "more perfect" engines get, the more important it becomes for them to "understand" the weaknesses of the opponent. Playing chess is not about playing perfect moves but about luring the opponent into making a mistake (saying this somehow offends many people, I have noticed in the past).

MCTS is by its averaging nature a luring algorithm. It seeks regions of the tree where it tends to find many “winning” situations for itself and conversely many “opportunities to go wrong” for the opponent. AB on the other hand is fine with picking out one fine and select path just so long as it likes the position at the end of the line. MCTS seeks to take you into a minefield, AB seeks to come out the other side of the minefield in one piece (or rest on an apparently safe stepping stone if it cant find apparent quiescent safety).
Luring the opponent into making a mistake OTB (setting traps) is either a very high level playing skill, or simply reflects big disparity between players. It’s pretty dangerous to assume you saw the trap while the opponent doesn’t, assuming your opponent is equally strong player. It probably also assumes “tactics” and in most high level chess, tactics is what you finish off positional advantage with, imho.

So logically chess is all tactics, and positional advantage is just knowing tactics will win in the end. Without the ability to see the tactics to the end.

No.

Then lets get the the heart of the question. What is tactics vs positional play? And what is the difference between the two, other then the distance to calculate the line fully, and to use experience.

I am still open to the question!

When does tactics end, and positional play began?

maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies

Educate me.

This answer alone tell me you know nothing about the heart of the the question. Even the most bull shit question to you. We receive an essay response to a question posed to you!. This is a bullshit answer.

"maybe around FIDE 2100 or so, varies"

You need to do much better!

Thanks. I was being provocatively obtuse.

Yes, but most importantly you did not answer the question... Your bullshit does not work on me!

The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ...

2 bullshit answers in a row. And you still have not answered the question....

"When does tactics end, and positional play begain?"

I am still waiting.

See above. At FIDE 2150 or so.

Ok, Chris says a 2150 elo player has the "positional undersanding of the SF 12"

Que?! Ah, You were interpreting the FIDE 2150 as applying to chess engines? Tactical and positional play are human constructs. They are an attempt to describe a human process of playing, or more exactly, thinking. The FIDE 2150 is referring to human chess play and human chess thinking processes. Does “at FIDE 2150 or so” make more sense to you now?

I give this latest game as an example of his foolishness!. I really great game by Stockfish 12. Even high level master were confused.

[pgn]Stockfish 8 64 POPCNT
2020.09.06
Stockfish 040920
?
0-1
Chess Tournament 200 rounds, 09/03/2020 (1.17)

1. c4 e5 2. Nc3 Nf6 3. Nf3 Nc6 4. e3 A28: English, four knights, 4.e3 4... Be7 5. Qb3 O-O 6. d3 a5 End of opening 7. Be2 69.00/0 2106805911 7... a4 110.09/0 2267424783 8. Nxa4 19.09/0 626509486 8... d5 12.07/0 288059106 9. O-O 0.05/27 6.6 210597146 9... dxc4 22.00/0 492419058 10. dxc4 30.04/0 955610108 10... e4 19.02/0 437322799 11. Nd2 0.10/29 7.8 249013390 11... Bf5 18.01/0 394755594 12. Nc3 51.01/0 1588709500 12... Ne5 42.03/0 912781354 13. Qxb7 19.01/0 598479625 13... Rb8 14.03/0 338379137 14. Qa7 48.09/0 1578178469 14... Bb4 18.00/0 427744534 15. Rd1 54.07/0 1777836789 15... Qc8 31.00/0 747156102 16. Qa4 29.01/0 958495050 16... Bxc3 18.04/0 459041309 17. bxc3 0.00/38 6.4 216381212 17... c5 26.02/0 639695927 18. Nf1 39.00/0 1301146095 18... Ra8 22.02/0 570878189 19. Qb3 32.05/0 1110358527 19... Ra6 36.09/0 916380047 20. Ng3 27.01/0 915368009 20... Bd7 19.09/0 506598911 21. Qb1 49.09/0 1656605627 21... Qa8 22.06/0 579805921 22. Rd2 36.07/0 1232416900 22... h5 28.08/0 717311200 23. h4 82.05/0 2766791481 23... Rb8 20.09/0 584295515 24. Rb2 62.02/0 2169031404 24... Rxb2 26.01/0 731394253 25. Qxb2 -0.50/30 6.2 223201852 25... Bg4 22.03/0 613198680 26. Bf1 28.07/0 991965796 26... Ng6 33.04/0 904498793 27. Bd2 95.09/0 3324609863 27... Nxh4 22.09/0 635214103 28. Be1 100.00/0 3506620576 28... Ng6 22.09/0 643141588 29. Ne2 15.09/0 575675595 29... Ne5 51.00/0 1452525012 30. Nf4 160.02/0 5747163843 30... Qc8 26.09/0 794716448 31. Rb1 32.08/0 1169558328 31... Kh7 22.08/0 662688464 32. a3 34.08/0 1279012715 32... Qf5 25.06/0 756879608 33. Qb8 99.04/0 3526068575 33... Nfd7 34.06/0 1084544059 34. Qd8 28.08/0 1028491096 34... Rxa3 21.09/0 722070310 35. Nd5 29.00/0 1068020894 35... Ng6 23.03/0 807356643 36. Qc7 -3.95/29 3.3 133471872 36... Ra2 28.07/0 1011193067 37. Qg3 47.07/0 1767845222 37... h4 36.06/0 1370200740 38. Qh2 21.09/0 843318995 38... Nde5 34.04/0 1300036950 39. Nf4 -4.85/35 5.8 230340716 39... Nxf4 21.07/0 893553385 40. Qxf4 26.06/0 1089681000 40... g5 40.01/0 1727163705 41. Qxf5 15.00/0 626926922 41... Bxf5 20.08/0 932978886 42. Kh2 15.00/0 623639684 42... f6 20.08/0 938065352 43. Rd1 -5.94/34 7.1 290212620 43... Kg6 28.00/0 1250761455 44. Rc1 22.09/0 972572942 44... Bg4 47.08/0 2351628800 45. Kh1 -5.99/35 9.6 404887736 45... Be2 22.06/0 1149987047 46. Kg1 20.04/0 893867592 46... Nd3 22.09/0 1137370529 47. Rb1 15.00/0 667467412 47... Bxf1 21.01/0 1325711386 48. Kxf1 15.00/0 668110259 48... g4 20.08/0 1395914214 49. Rd1 15.00/0 adjudication by engines' scores -128.31/35 702579981[/pgn]

"Ah, You were interpreting the FIDE 2150 as applying to chess engines? Tactical and positional play are human constructs."
Yes, and you finally agree with me..... exactly! And Chess is Chess. No matter who or what is playing the game.

No.
"where does tactical end and positional play start", or whatever your question, well challenge actually, was, is about meta-cognition. Tactical and positional play are, in humans, about thought processes, your question/challenge involves thinking about thinking. Any answer therefore has to tailor itself to a level that the questioner is going to understand, how does the questioner think in this particular field? I don't know what level of chess understanding you have, hence I gave you the answer in such a way you'ld then demonstrate what you understand/know and what not.
Since your response was full of either words like bullshit or exclamation marks, the demonstration was what was probably expected. You weren't able to grapple with the meaning of the answer. Nor able to take on the other clue, "The “answer” is playing out right here. Your move ..."

Cornfed made the intuition later ...

mwyoung wrote: Educate me.
Cornfed wrote: I should just stay out of the $hit$how...but I think you are after an argument, not 'education'.

I'ld take it one further and back to the topic, your posts, in this thread, themselves are "tactical", full of wild language, claims of winning, all expecting something to happen, action-reaction, NxBf6 sac sac sac bullshit sac !! lol educate me. etc.
That's tactical chess play, every position looking for action, what can I do, can I take this and my queen there and check check. Every position a battlefield with action to be found. Or as Cornfed intuited, "you are after an argument". Problem with this mode of thought is you get stuck, you know all there is about positional things, bishop pairs and knights on rims and all that stuff every hand crafted eval has, but the thinking and the play remains "tactics". And your chess rating remains stuck. You may know what the IMs and GMs know positionally, but your rating remains way below. Probably they see more 'patterns' so the natural assumption is to try and learn those patterns, but this doesn't really help, because it isn't the problem. Difficult cognitive dissonance. Well, the answer lies not in what they 'know', but in how and what they think.
First step, it's just my anecdotal opinion placing this at 2100 FIDE or less, is to get that "my problem is I am always looking for something to happen, chess is tactics' and negate it. Stop. Play positional. So, answer to your question: positional play/thinking is what happens when you stop thinking it's all tactics, finding something to do, making action. Simple, it's just a maturity level, as applied to chess.