SF 17 coming soon

[Viz]

Winning in a shorter way wouldn't make you stronger in a common sense.
In fact when stockfish had contempt that actually brought elo high values of it did exactly the opposite - sf was just refusing to trade pieces in hope of opponent missteps and because of this it was winning very very grindy games with, making closed positions from like all of the openings.
But it indeed was extremely effective, one simple setting brought up to 30-40 elo vs engines that were 150 elo weaker.

All chess players (some non-chessplaying engine tinkerers might not know) know that if you beat your opponent in 30 moves, and your friend beats his opponent after a long 66 moves endgame - that you are probably more superior to your opponent in strength than your friend is.

And this is definitely completely false.
My co-worker is a weaker player than me (can be showcased because I have positive score in 1x1 and also 200~ more elo on lichess) but when it comes to beating weaker players he finishes them faster because he is more of an attacker and I'm more of a positional player.
In a position where he will try and against weaker players succeed to deliever fast mate I will just win material, trade down to endgame and win it easily.
This doesn't make me weaker, of course.

[BrendanJNorman]

Winning in a shorter way wouldn't make you stronger in a common sense.
In fact when stockfish had contempt that actually brought elo high values of it did exactly the opposite - sf was just refusing to trade pieces in hope of opponent missteps and because of this it was winning very very grindy games with, making closed positions from like all of the openings.
But it indeed was extremely effective, one simple setting brought up to 30-40 elo vs engines that were 150 elo weaker.

All chess players (some non-chessplaying engine tinkerers might not know) know that if you beat your opponent in 30 moves, and your friend beats his opponent after a long 66 moves endgame - that you are probably more superior to your opponent in strength than your friend is.

And this is definitely completely false.
My co-worker is a weaker player than me (can be showcased because I have positive score in 1x1 and also 200~ more elo on lichess) but when it comes to beating weaker players he finishes them faster because he is more of an attacker and I'm more of a positional player.
In a position where he will try and against weaker players succeed to deliever fast mate I will just win material, trade down to endgame and win it easily.
This doesn't make me weaker, of course.

Nobody asked about you and your weak buddies on liChess.

We are talking about engines rated over 3300 Elo (minimum).

Not the same game.

One has a scientific, very precise element, one is monkeys throwing mud at a wall.

One stark difference is that it doesn't matter how "positional" an engine is, it will still choose the most razor-sharp, tactical path IF that is indeed the best move/sequence.

Karpov or Andersson might play something else to avoid tactical ambiguity, a 3300 Elo engine will *always* take the tactical route.

No 3300 engine says "I'm more positional bruh, so I'm just gonna avoid the best move and trade into an 'easy' endgame".

And this *does* accelerate the end of the game (obviously).

Besides, if we are measuring versions of the same engine, the whole "style" argument goes out the window anyway.

The stronger version will generally win in less moves against the same opponent.

Try to be respectful in the future, and stop this arrogant habit of speaking in absolutes ("This is definitely completely false coz muh liChess friend is an attacker!" )

[Viz]

More or less.
I made an example from engine play - "nah, this is irrelevant, in human play it's completely different".
I made an example from human play - "nah, this is irrelevant, in engine play it's completely different".
Well you probably already know how I would call people like you.

[BrendanJNorman]

Well you probably already know how I would call people like you.

Daddy?

[AndrewGrant]

What to expect? This is 8 core test vs SF 16 with 8 moves book

Code: Select all

Elo: 8.16 ± 0.7 (95%) LOS: 100.0%
Total: 35004 W: 1380 L: 558 D: 33066
Ptnml(0-2): 2, 215, 16249, 1031, 5
nElo: 43.43 ± 3.1 (95%) PairsRatio: 4.77 

So +8 Elo in 14 months.

As everyone competent in the space knows, these dead drawn books cannot be used to gauge the strength of engines anymore.

Here are the top humans. From number 2 down to number 20 is a 70 Elo range. More compressed than the range of the top 20 engines.
We don't ask them to play highly unfavourable opening lines.

As I said: everyone competent.

[RubiChess]

Why do people still compare engine chess with human chess? Except for the rules they have almost nothing in common.

[Graham Banks]

Why do people still compare engine chess with human chess? Except for the rules they have almost nothing in common.

I'm pointing out a similar compression in the ratings used for both. I think that it's a valid point.

[AndrewGrant]

Why do people still compare engine chess with human chess? Except for the rules they have almost nothing in common.

I'm pointing out a similar compression in the ratings used for both. I think that it's a valid point.

In order to determine the worlds strongest human, we will have them take turns curling sets of 1kg weights.

[pohl4711]

There is no more religion!

Only with insane openings can one hope to measure some improvement ...

These openings are UHO. Which means Unbalanced Human Openings. Each opening line was played by humans. So, calling these openings insane means, calling these humans insane. And that is really insane and an insult to these chessplayers.

To be fair, how many were played by GM's?

In my UHO 2024 openigs, a recommended file (second eval stage) is for example the 8 moves deep openings UHO_2024_8mvs_+090_+099
This file contains 17145 lines. All of my UHO files are sorted by Elo. And (around) the first 2000 lines were played by players with both 2500+ Elo.

The 500 openings, I use for my UHO-Top15 ratinglist, come from the UHO2022 openings, it is the file UHO_2022_6mvs_+120_+129. Here I use the first 500 lines, by the strongest players, so all of these openings were played by 2500+ Elo players.
This is the line 500, with the weakest players:
[Event "Vladimir Petrov Memorial blitz op"]
[Site "Jurmala"]
[Date "2015.03.06"]
[Round "8"]
[White "Fridman, Daniel"]
[Black "Ehlvest, Jaan"]
[Result "1/2-1/2"]
[ECO "B09"]
[WhiteElo "2647"]
[BlackElo "2547"]
[Annotator "depth=26 eval=+123"]
[PlyCount "12"]
[EventDate "2015.??.??"]

1. d4 d6 2. e4 Nf6 3. Nc3 g6 4. f4 Bg7 5. Nf3 O-O 6. e5 Ne8 1/2-1/2


So, for ratinglists or tournaments, it is very easy to use UHO openings only, which were played by GMs. And I am doing this by myself.

As I mentioned again and again, the huge UHO-files, used in Fishtest, were made for developers, thats why they had to be that big. Here, of course, not all lines are from GMs. Thats impossible. But for testers, these UHO-files are not recommended for using !!!

[Sylwy]

SF 17:
https://abrok.eu/stockfish/

https://stockfishchess.org/download/windows/