Dylan Sharp Vs. Harvey Williamson (G4)

[Ovyron]

Well, so far Stockfish has found all the kernels. Or was "blind hen" intended to be self-referential.

Okay, maybe I can help you not waste much time having to reach depth 60 by doing the bare minimum of interactive analysis. Try this:

1.- Get the PV that Stockfish dev Depth 60 shows, and play the like up to move 36. This will be "relative depth 30." Now, put your engine to analyze to depth 60 on that position.

2. There's three possible things that can happen:

A) The evaluation gets down very near 0. This meant the PV had a blunder by black somewhere and the eval from the root couldn't be trusted.

B) The evaluation will explode to the high 2.00 or more. This meant the PV had a blunder by white somewhere and the eval from the root couldn't be trusted.

C) The evaluation remains stable, so around where it is now, because of law of averages or because the moves from both side were very good.

If C happens then you'll have from this line what you'd have seen at Detph 90 from the root!

This is why I can find Stockfish's depth 60 moves in a fraction of the time and am able to play 17 correspondence chess games at this level without ever having to reach high depth. Because what matters are the moves and you can take shortcuts to find them up to move 36, not just the root position.

[MikeB]

Agreed, White does have some winning chances - just not very much. Personally, when I'm down to 40% , I'm looking for the draw ( perpetual, 3 fold repetition or known 7 men drawn endgame) . If I have 60% , I'm looking and going for the win - its like being the Lion, you might get a win 1 out of 5 times (successful kill) , but if you are looking for the draw, you will not get the win ( unless the opponent absolutely blunders).

As I've said in other threads, a "60%" doesn't say anything, you have to talk about 3 percentages %-chance white wins, %-chance black wins and %-chance game is drawn. Though you only need 2 percentages, because the third one is just 100 with the the other two subtracted, a 40% of nothing tells us nothing.

How about we agree to disagree ;>) ... and we can still be nice to each other if you want...

[Ovyron]

I'm not critiquing, I'm inquiring. What is a 50%? 50% chance of what? It goes all the way from 100% drawn to 33% white wins/33% draw/33% black wins to 50% white wins/50% black wins. When I say I don't get it I mean it, and I'm open to switching to those percentages if I can understand them.

Otherwise, other people have already figured out how to represent something like 0% winning chances but equal chances: just show big scores for the side to move, let the user learn how to deal with asymmetric evaluation of positions, like ShashChess Petrosian setting which might show high eval for both sides if the position has low drawing chances. That's more useful than %s.

Conditional accepted.

1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Ne7 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nbc6

[d]r1bqkb1r/pp2nppp/2n5/2pp2P1/8/2N2N2/PP2PPBP/R1BQK2R w KQkq -

My turn again.

[Zenmastur]

Well, so far Stockfish has found all the kernels. Or was "blind hen" intended to be self-referential.

Okay, maybe I can help you not waste much time having to reach depth 60 by doing the bare minimum of interactive analysis. Try this:

1.- Get the PV that Stockfish dev Depth 60 shows, and play the like up to move 36. This will be "relative depth 30." Now, put your engine to analyze to depth 60 on that position.

2. There's three possible things that can happen:

A) The evaluation gets down very near 0. This meant the PV had a blunder by black somewhere and the eval from the root couldn't be trusted.

B) The evaluation will explode to the high 2.00 or more. This meant the PV had a blunder by white somewhere and the eval from the root couldn't be trusted.

C) The evaluation remains stable, so around where it is now, because of law of averages or because the moves from both side were very good.

If C happens then you'll have from this line what you'd have seen at Detph 90 from the root!

This is why I can find Stockfish's depth 60 moves in a fraction of the time and am able to play 17 correspondence chess games at this level without ever having to reach high depth. Because what matters are the moves and you can take shortcuts to find them up to move 36, not just the root position.

Items A, B, and C either are conclusions or contain conclusions that are false.
E.G. in the case of A it could be that the PV didn't have a blunder in it and the “true” value of the root position is actually 0.00.

E.g. in the case of B it could be that the Pv doesn't have a blunder in it and the “true” value of the root position is -2.xx or less. In fact, if you are analyzing for black, one of the main reasons why you might conduct your analysis using compound searches etc. is to find positions that "prove" that this, is in fact, the case.

I think you get the point.

Regards,

Zenmastur

[maxdeg]

@Dylan Sharp :

WitchesButt IS following your game ..

[zullil]

Conditional accepted.

1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Ne7 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nbc6

[d]r1bqkb1r/pp2nppp/2n5/2pp2P1/8/2N2N2/PP2PPBP/R1BQK2R w KQkq -

My turn again.

-1.51 at depth 60.

Still waiting for something other than a move from Stockfish-dev's mainline, the next dozen moves of which have remained unchanged for many moves.

In particular, still awaiting some "novelty" from White, which I suspect would be immediately losing, of course. But maybe I'm wrong, which is why I'm still following this.

[Ovyron]

Hey Max

Items A, B, and C either are conclusions or contain conclusions that are false.
E.G. in the case of A it could be that the PV didn't have a blunder in it and the “true” value of the root position is actually 0.00.

E.g. in the case of B it could be that the Pv doesn't have a blunder in it and the “true” value of the root position is -2.xx or less. In fact, if you are analyzing for black, one of the main reasons why you might conduct your analysis using compound searches etc. is to find positions that "prove" that this, is in fact, the case.

Have you ever seen that happen? With this much material on the board at move 6 Stockfish giving some 1.50 scores at high depth and when you force the next 15 moves it goes down to 0.00 or more than 2.00 and when you try to find alternative moves you can't find any?

I guess it's a thing that could happen. It could also happen that when you put a random mover against Stockfish 10, the random mover wins on its first try, but you wouldn't use such unlikely cases to defend a stance. Stockfish's Depth 60 becomes increasingly more crappy as you check moves from its PV, and the eval is nothing more than what you'd get if you played the entire PV and played a DEPTH 1 move at the tail of the variation. Depth 60 showing the mainline of the game yet showing a wrong score is pure fantasy, that only happens in positions near the end of the game (and when I say end, I don't mean endgames, I mean when a side can force checkmate or force a draw from the root position.)

1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Ne7 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nbc6 8. O-O

[d]r1bqkb1r/pp2nppp/2n5/2pp2P1/8/2N2N2/PP2PPBP/R1BQ1RK1 b kq -

[Harvey Williamson]

A fast reply today as I expected this.
[pgn]1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Ne7 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nbc6 8. O-O d4[/pgn] and another conditional if 9. Ne4 Ng6

[zullil]

A fast reply today as I expected this.
[pgn]1. g4 d5 2. g5 e5 3. d4 exd4 4. Nf3 c5 5. Bg2 Ne7 6. c3 dxc3 7. Nxc3 Nbc6 8. O-O d4[/pgn] and another conditional if 9. Ne4 Ng6

Still Stockfish self-play. Still hoping for something "novel".

[jp]

A) The evaluation gets down very near 0. This meant the PV had a blunder by black somewhere and the eval from the root couldn't be trusted.
B) The evaluation will explode to the high 2.00 or more. This meant the PV had a blunder by white somewhere and the eval from the root couldn't be trusted.
C) The evaluation remains stable, so around where it is now, because of law of averages or because the moves from both side were very good.

If C happens then you'll have from this line what you'd have seen at Depth 90 from the root!

Is this what you meant when you wrote the post below?

you just need to have a third party software like Chess Openings Wizard and backsolve manually scores of positions, and then you'll have accurate scores of everything you analyze, and all you need to do for positions you already analyzed is exclude the moves you already have evaluated and ask the engine what it thinks about the rest with something like my patched McBrain X with Smarter Tactical setting, and this will beat the analysis of a hash full of relevant positions, something like Persistent Hash, or a Stockfish with learning, but you have to actually put the work into it and analyze the relevant positions to evaluate them.