I toast to LeelaqueenOdds and its creators. I raise my wine glass high and shout: Long live the queen. We have a queen!!

[Father]

Oh I was very aware that Knight and Rook odds BOTS were out there! What I really didn't quite appreciate is that these BOTS had NN specifically designed to take advantage of human weaknesses when playing Knight or Rook odds. I had thought that this was just a super powerful engine that could play with this handicap. So in essence these BOTS were NOT playing the strongest chess move in the position, but rather the chess move that had the best chance of succeeding against a human. That is something I just did not appreciate the effectiveness of.

Well, there are no "strongest chess moves" in a lost position,

engines with non-infinite search and an evaluation function would beg to differ

unless your definition is the move that postpones the checkmate as long as possible with perfect play. The human definition is the move that gives the best practical chances of saving the game against an imperfect opponent, and this is precisely what the bots do. The imperfect opponent is a bot that is a simulation of a human GM (for the smaller odds) or master (for queen odds), but it is still a bot, not an actual human, so perhaps it's best to think of the Leela bots as optimized against both strong humans and weak engines, ones it can actually draw or beat at the odds.

If "strongest move" depends on an evaluation function, then you are just saying that the strongest move is a matter of opinion, depending on which evaluation function is used. Most evaluation functions are not designed to give accurate evals when someone is a queen down. so these "opinions" will vary greatly and often be worthless.

Good morning, Mr. Larry Kaufman. I would like to know, and therefore I ask, in the list of the 100 humans at the top of the LeelaQueenOdds Robot leaderboard, how many of these humans hold the title of Chess Master in any of its denominations. I would also like to know how many of these non-titled players hold a Master level. I appreciate your kindness in helping me with these questions. I would also like to know what you consider to be the "estimated average" of the 100 humans in the leaderboard. Thank you in advance. I wish you a happy day.

"Chess Master" is not a well-defined term; for FIDE it means FM (Normally reaching 2300 elo), for US it means reaching 2200 national rating, other countries may have varying standards. I think that the only practical definition we can use here is to say that anyone with a LiChess blitz rating over 2400 is at least as strong in blitz as a borderline US national master. Many LiChess players are anonymous, so that's the only practical definition we might use. You would then just look up the LIChess blitz ratings of each of them and call them masters if over 2400. As for average strength, if you average the Lichess blitz ratings and then subtract 200, that is a good estimate of the FIDE rating needed for equivalent skill in blitz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Larry Kaufman, for your teachings. I've done a rough comparison, and I believe that more than 50 of the 100 players on the list have all the characteristics of being National Masters with a FIDE ELO of 2200 or more. In addition, there is a significant group of people who also have the quality of being titled players or players of the highest level of play. I want to tell you, Mr. Larry Kaufman, that sometimes I feel "the LeelaQueenOdds machine" is alive and plays with me the way a cat plays with its prey. The large amount of play I have with the machine allows me, at a level of parallelism, to understand and see it mutate. I don't think it's my imagination. I truly perceive an immanent force in the computer. I feel like I'm LeelaQueenOdds's toy. I don't feel demoralized, but perhaps I'll leave things at that. I believe I have the ability and current skill to reach approximately 2710 Elo on the current leaderboard, but it seems I lack the patience, and my passion for playing leads me to play matches at low levels of my biorhythm, which isn't good for reaching a high Elo. I prefer to play more often than to have a higher Elo. I'll try to surprise you all, Mr. Larry Kaufman. If I don't make it, my ceiling would have been lower, Orichess88, last weekend. We'll see what happens. Thanks.

[lkaufman]

Oh I was very aware that Knight and Rook odds BOTS were out there! What I really didn't quite appreciate is that these BOTS had NN specifically designed to take advantage of human weaknesses when playing Knight or Rook odds. I had thought that this was just a super powerful engine that could play with this handicap. So in essence these BOTS were NOT playing the strongest chess move in the position, but rather the chess move that had the best chance of succeeding against a human. That is something I just did not appreciate the effectiveness of.

Well, there are no "strongest chess moves" in a lost position,

engines with non-infinite search and an evaluation function would beg to differ

unless your definition is the move that postpones the checkmate as long as possible with perfect play. The human definition is the move that gives the best practical chances of saving the game against an imperfect opponent, and this is precisely what the bots do. The imperfect opponent is a bot that is a simulation of a human GM (for the smaller odds) or master (for queen odds), but it is still a bot, not an actual human, so perhaps it's best to think of the Leela bots as optimized against both strong humans and weak engines, ones it can actually draw or beat at the odds.

If "strongest move" depends on an evaluation function, then you are just saying that the strongest move is a matter of opinion, depending on which evaluation function is used. Most evaluation functions are not designed to give accurate evals when someone is a queen down. so these "opinions" will vary greatly and often be worthless.

Good morning, Mr. Larry Kaufman. I would like to know, and therefore I ask, in the list of the 100 humans at the top of the LeelaQueenOdds Robot leaderboard, how many of these humans hold the title of Chess Master in any of its denominations. I would also like to know how many of these non-titled players hold a Master level. I appreciate your kindness in helping me with these questions. I would also like to know what you consider to be the "estimated average" of the 100 humans in the leaderboard. Thank you in advance. I wish you a happy day.

"Chess Master" is not a well-defined term; for FIDE it means FM (Normally reaching 2300 elo), for US it means reaching 2200 national rating, other countries may have varying standards. I think that the only practical definition we can use here is to say that anyone with a LiChess blitz rating over 2400 is at least as strong in blitz as a borderline US national master. Many LiChess players are anonymous, so that's the only practical definition we might use. You would then just look up the LIChess blitz ratings of each of them and call them masters if over 2400. As for average strength, if you average the Lichess blitz ratings and then subtract 200, that is a good estimate of the FIDE rating needed for equivalent skill in blitz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Larry Kaufman, for your teachings. I've done a rough comparison, and I believe that more than 50 of the 100 players on the list have all the characteristics of being National Masters with a FIDE ELO of 2200 or more. In addition, there is a significant group of people who also have the quality of being titled players or players of the highest level of play. I want to tell you, Mr. Larry Kaufman, that sometimes I feel "the LeelaQueenOdds machine" is alive and plays with me the way a cat plays with its prey. The large amount of play I have with the machine allows me, at a level of parallelism, to understand and see it mutate. I don't think it's my imagination. I truly perceive an immanent force in the computer. I feel like I'm LeelaQueenOdds's toy. I don't feel demoralized, but perhaps I'll leave things at that. I believe I have the ability and current skill to reach approximately 2710 Elo on the current leaderboard, but it seems I lack the patience, and my passion for playing leads me to play matches at low levels of my biorhythm, which isn't good for reaching a high Elo. I prefer to play more often than to have a higher Elo. I'll try to surprise you all, Mr. Larry Kaufman. If I don't make it, my ceiling would have been lower, Orichess88, last weekend. We'll see what happens. Thanks.

It seems that "Arka50" (whom you mentioned earlier), with a blitz rating about 2900 and a bullet rating of 3213, is the strongest GM on the list (at least the strongest with known or suspected identity), and the most successful in 1'0" bullet (playing Black) vs. Leela Queen odds of anyone with a meaningful number of games. We assume he is GM Arkady Naiditsch, although he doesn't actually say so. He is only 4 games behind out of 70, so he might very well soon reach a plus score under those conditions, which would be a first and quite impressive, since so many super-strong bullet players have failed to surpass even 25%.

[Father]

Oh I was very aware that Knight and Rook odds BOTS were out there! What I really didn't quite appreciate is that these BOTS had NN specifically designed to take advantage of human weaknesses when playing Knight or Rook odds. I had thought that this was just a super powerful engine that could play with this handicap. So in essence these BOTS were NOT playing the strongest chess move in the position, but rather the chess move that had the best chance of succeeding against a human. That is something I just did not appreciate the effectiveness of.

Well, there are no "strongest chess moves" in a lost position,

engines with non-infinite search and an evaluation function would beg to differ

unless your definition is the move that postpones the checkmate as long as possible with perfect play. The human definition is the move that gives the best practical chances of saving the game against an imperfect opponent, and this is precisely what the bots do. The imperfect opponent is a bot that is a simulation of a human GM (for the smaller odds) or master (for queen odds), but it is still a bot, not an actual human, so perhaps it's best to think of the Leela bots as optimized against both strong humans and weak engines, ones it can actually draw or beat at the odds.

If "strongest move" depends on an evaluation function, then you are just saying that the strongest move is a matter of opinion, depending on which evaluation function is used. Most evaluation functions are not designed to give accurate evals when someone is a queen down. so these "opinions" will vary greatly and often be worthless.

Good morning, Mr. Larry Kaufman. I would like to know, and therefore I ask, in the list of the 100 humans at the top of the LeelaQueenOdds Robot leaderboard, how many of these humans hold the title of Chess Master in any of its denominations. I would also like to know how many of these non-titled players hold a Master level. I appreciate your kindness in helping me with these questions. I would also like to know what you consider to be the "estimated average" of the 100 humans in the leaderboard. Thank you in advance. I wish you a happy day.

"Chess Master" is not a well-defined term; for FIDE it means FM (Normally reaching 2300 elo), for US it means reaching 2200 national rating, other countries may have varying standards. I think that the only practical definition we can use here is to say that anyone with a LiChess blitz rating over 2400 is at least as strong in blitz as a borderline US national master. Many LiChess players are anonymous, so that's the only practical definition we might use. You would then just look up the LIChess blitz ratings of each of them and call them masters if over 2400. As for average strength, if you average the Lichess blitz ratings and then subtract 200, that is a good estimate of the FIDE rating needed for equivalent skill in blitz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Larry Kaufman, for your teachings. I've done a rough comparison, and I believe that more than 50 of the 100 players on the list have all the characteristics of being National Masters with a FIDE ELO of 2200 or more. In addition, there is a significant group of people who also have the quality of being titled players or players of the highest level of play. I want to tell you, Mr. Larry Kaufman, that sometimes I feel "the LeelaQueenOdds machine" is alive and plays with me the way a cat plays with its prey. The large amount of play I have with the machine allows me, at a level of parallelism, to understand and see it mutate. I don't think it's my imagination. I truly perceive an immanent force in the computer. I feel like I'm LeelaQueenOdds's toy. I don't feel demoralized, but perhaps I'll leave things at that. I believe I have the ability and current skill to reach approximately 2710 Elo on the current leaderboard, but it seems I lack the patience, and my passion for playing leads me to play matches at low levels of my biorhythm, which isn't good for reaching a high Elo. I prefer to play more often than to have a higher Elo. I'll try to surprise you all, Mr. Larry Kaufman. If I don't make it, my ceiling would have been lower, Orichess88, last weekend. We'll see what happens. Thanks.

It seems that "Arka50" (whom you mentioned earlier), with a blitz rating about 2900 and a bullet rating of 3213, is the strongest GM on the list (at least the strongest with known or suspected identity), and the most successful in 1'0" bullet (playing Black) vs. Leela Queen odds of anyone with a meaningful number of games. We assume he is GM Arkady Naiditsch, although he doesn't actually say so. He is only 4 games behind out of 70, so he might very well soon reach a plus score under those conditions, which would be a first and quite impressive, since so many super-strong bullet players have failed to surpass even 25%.

A new day begins. I thank God for the life he gives us as human beings, and I give thanks for the algorithms that accompany our algorithms. Good morning, Mr. Larry Kaufman. I hope you are well and continue doing well. I've looked at the leaderboard on LeelaQueenOdds and see that today there's a new leader: "Arka50"!! I want to congratulate Arka50 and hope these words I'm writing reach him. Catecan and I feel like a mule and its rider competing against racehorses. I hope that our technique of moving "steadily and safely" will become very effective over time. When the queen "LeelaQueenOdds" is unbeatable, Catecan and I will shine like the great mule that Dad followed his dreams with: "Sterlina."

[lkaufman]

Oh I was very aware that Knight and Rook odds BOTS were out there! What I really didn't quite appreciate is that these BOTS had NN specifically designed to take advantage of human weaknesses when playing Knight or Rook odds. I had thought that this was just a super powerful engine that could play with this handicap. So in essence these BOTS were NOT playing the strongest chess move in the position, but rather the chess move that had the best chance of succeeding against a human. That is something I just did not appreciate the effectiveness of.

Well, there are no "strongest chess moves" in a lost position,

engines with non-infinite search and an evaluation function would beg to differ

unless your definition is the move that postpones the checkmate as long as possible with perfect play. The human definition is the move that gives the best practical chances of saving the game against an imperfect opponent, and this is precisely what the bots do. The imperfect opponent is a bot that is a simulation of a human GM (for the smaller odds) or master (for queen odds), but it is still a bot, not an actual human, so perhaps it's best to think of the Leela bots as optimized against both strong humans and weak engines, ones it can actually draw or beat at the odds.

If "strongest move" depends on an evaluation function, then you are just saying that the strongest move is a matter of opinion, depending on which evaluation function is used. Most evaluation functions are not designed to give accurate evals when someone is a queen down. so these "opinions" will vary greatly and often be worthless.

Good morning, Mr. Larry Kaufman. I would like to know, and therefore I ask, in the list of the 100 humans at the top of the LeelaQueenOdds Robot leaderboard, how many of these humans hold the title of Chess Master in any of its denominations. I would also like to know how many of these non-titled players hold a Master level. I appreciate your kindness in helping me with these questions. I would also like to know what you consider to be the "estimated average" of the 100 humans in the leaderboard. Thank you in advance. I wish you a happy day.

"Chess Master" is not a well-defined term; for FIDE it means FM (Normally reaching 2300 elo), for US it means reaching 2200 national rating, other countries may have varying standards. I think that the only practical definition we can use here is to say that anyone with a LiChess blitz rating over 2400 is at least as strong in blitz as a borderline US national master. Many LiChess players are anonymous, so that's the only practical definition we might use. You would then just look up the LIChess blitz ratings of each of them and call them masters if over 2400. As for average strength, if you average the Lichess blitz ratings and then subtract 200, that is a good estimate of the FIDE rating needed for equivalent skill in blitz.

Thank you very much, Mr. Larry Kaufman, for your teachings. I've done a rough comparison, and I believe that more than 50 of the 100 players on the list have all the characteristics of being National Masters with a FIDE ELO of 2200 or more. In addition, there is a significant group of people who also have the quality of being titled players or players of the highest level of play. I want to tell you, Mr. Larry Kaufman, that sometimes I feel "the LeelaQueenOdds machine" is alive and plays with me the way a cat plays with its prey. The large amount of play I have with the machine allows me, at a level of parallelism, to understand and see it mutate. I don't think it's my imagination. I truly perceive an immanent force in the computer. I feel like I'm LeelaQueenOdds's toy. I don't feel demoralized, but perhaps I'll leave things at that. I believe I have the ability and current skill to reach approximately 2710 Elo on the current leaderboard, but it seems I lack the patience, and my passion for playing leads me to play matches at low levels of my biorhythm, which isn't good for reaching a high Elo. I prefer to play more often than to have a higher Elo. I'll try to surprise you all, Mr. Larry Kaufman. If I don't make it, my ceiling would have been lower, Orichess88, last weekend. We'll see what happens. Thanks.

It seems that "Arka50" (whom you mentioned earlier), with a blitz rating about 2900 and a bullet rating of 3213, is the strongest GM on the list (at least the strongest with known or suspected identity), and the most successful in 1'0" bullet (playing Black) vs. Leela Queen odds of anyone with a meaningful number of games. We assume he is GM Arkady Naiditsch, although he doesn't actually say so. He is only 4 games behind out of 70, so he might very well soon reach a plus score under those conditions, which would be a first and quite impressive, since so many super-strong bullet players have failed to surpass even 25%.

A new day begins. I thank God for the life he gives us as human beings, and I give thanks for the algorithms that accompany our algorithms. Good morning, Mr. Larry Kaufman. I hope you are well and continue doing well. I've looked at the leaderboard on LeelaQueenOdds and see that today there's a new leader: "Arka50"!! I want to congratulate Arka50 and hope these words I'm writing reach him. Catecan and I feel like a mule and its rider competing against racehorses. I hope that our technique of moving "steadily and safely" will become very effective over time. When the queen "LeelaQueenOdds" is unbeatable, Catecan and I will shine like the great mule that Dad followed his dreams with: "Sterlina."

Yes, "Arka50" took over the lead by making a close score in 1'0" bullet, losing just by 44 to 38 plus 14 draws, while scoring about 85% in blitz. Meanwhile Turkish prodigy Ediz Gurel, with an incredible 3401 bullet rating on LiChess, achieved a similar result (losing 15 to 11 with five draws), but doesn't yet have enough games to have a high place on the standings. Both play only as Black. Who will be the first player to make a plus score playing Black at 1'+0" after at least twenty games? Also of interest, GM Andrey Esipenko, world number 42 on FIDE list, played five blitz games with LeelaKnightOdds today (at 3'1"), losing them all, plus three blitz games with LeelaRookOdds (same TC), losing two, winning one. The evidence is growing that Leela can make a plus score against almost anyone in the world giving rook odds in blitz, perhaps only Hikaru and Magnus might win a long match at 3'2" (Leela playing White). One GM, believed to be Devyatkin, has played way over a hundred RAPID games at 10'5" with only two wins! Even if he is just a "par" GM, that's pretty incredible.