Stockfish NNUE style

[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.

[syzygy]

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).

That is a good point. It is indeed quite likely that MCTS is much better at playing chess than AB when "perfect" knowledge is available (e.g. when using 32-men TBs to prevent playing a losing move, meaning that a choice has to be made from all drawing moves). Perhaps it should be used in "swindle mode" in 6- and 7-piece TB positions.

[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 tells 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!

[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.

[Albert Silver]

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?

Educate me.

Take ten manuals and you will likely get ten different answers or permutations of an answer. The answer that follows is entirely IMHO, though is also the result of many talks with top players on the nature of chess.

At the top level, they are so intermingled it is impossible to separate, and the engines really aren't much different. The fundamental difference between the two really boils down to concept and approach. Both are anchored in pattern recognition for humans, with tactics really closer to meticulous calculation than anything. Positional play is pattern recognition aimed at deriving an evaluation of the position without calculation, understanding its weaknesses and strengths based on common characteristics/features and their interaction, and then seeking to improve your strengths or weaknesses. At its core, it is about piece and pawn placement while using tactics/calculation to realize or execute plans that attempt to improve them or prevent your opponent from doing this.

As to what level this takes place: very early. I would say you can argue positional play at its most basic starts from ground zero, but in practice, where it is done more consciously, I would say maybe 1500-1600 Elo. Needless to say, this will evolve and expand from the most general ideas such as 'development' (piece placement!), king safety (piece placement!), or simply fighting for the center and space (piece placement!), to far more subtle aspects which greater skill and understanding will allow the player to appreciate and leverage.

Again, my two cents.

Albert

[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!

[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 ...

[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.

[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.

[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 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]