ShashChess

[Rebel]

It is obvious that I am the author of Shashin's theory in Stockfish and the rest is from the community.
A long time sprt test on 15000 games is simply impractical.
Therefore, I adopted a different strategy I think more intelligent since it also makes use of the chess concept of positional traits.
200 LTC games out of 100 different positional tracts ended with that gap is largely sufficient evidence that ShashChess is superior at least at that time cadence.
Any person with rudiments of statistics can confirm this, but there is none so deaf as those who will not hear and blind as those who will not see.
Unfortunately, most programmers do not understand this because they are not rated chess players
Now, I also find myself having to restate obviousness.

what a pathetic lie, all of this from start to finish.
If it's so sufficient with your superior understanding, why do you merge all stockfish patches? This question was asked to you like dozens of times and yet no one ever heard an answer.
And answer is simple. Without actually merging actual stockfish gainers you wouldn't be able to keep up small gap that allows you to fluke out tests of even 200 games because you yourself are incapable of producing a single elo of gain in your entire life.
So you shit on stockfish methodology 24/7 while fully merging whatever it produces, [Moderation - deleted personal attack].

This is always puzzling me, all cloners are like "60+0.6 tests are baaaad" and than proceed to merge every single freaking commit inherited from this 60+0.6 tests.
How much of a mental gymnastics you have to do to justify this?
Not to mention that when you are getting called out you go for racial slurs and death threats, which is simply amazing.
And then you cry about getting banned for "superiority of shashchess" while in reality both me and you know the reason, like wishing death to stockfish maintainers (or other people) is smth that should get you out of the community.
[Moderation - deleted personal attack].

Ah btw stop merging my patches into shashchess, they are not good since they are tested at 60+0.6 UHO openings and not your methodology, I look at the code and always wonder what my patches that fail yellow at LTC do there.

Please Viz, keep it civil.

[BrendanJNorman]

But what I do like about ShashChess is that using a Tal, Petrosian or Capablanca setting produces quite varied play, and not *that* much weaker than other top engines.

Proof is needed for the claim that anything amchess has committed into Stockfish is anything but noise.

The proof is in the games produced.

You see, in chess as a hobby, not everything is about statistics and Elo chasing.

If I (as a relatively serious chess coach/tournament player), see the "Capablanca" version of Shashchess play a Caro Kann line, arrange its pieces in a certain very solid way, aim for certain beneficial trades and head for advantageous endgames...

...and then see the " high Tal" version play the EXACT same line, place its pieces dynamically and aim for active play, kingside attacks and focus on dynamics, then this is a stark contrast in playing style, and interesting to me as a CHESS PLAYER.

I don't give a shit what the code changes were or how programmers "measure" such things with 10000 game bullet matches.

I observe the chess and see If I like it.

You are not a chessplayer, so such a "look at the actual games" approach is alien to you.

So I use ShashChess (and the Shashin algorithm) as a TOOL to get ideas for CHESS.

You squabble about the code in online forums, as if on some prove-you're-higher-iq-and-everyone-else-is-dumb quest.

Our goals are different.

A smarter man would train neural networks and filter the data in some good way to induce "style"

Again, here you are throwing around words that imply your feeling of intellectual superiority.

Stop it, be humble. There are millions of people smarter than any of us.

I do agree that filtering data to induce style is very interesting though, as used in the up and coming engine Patricia, for example.

[Viz]

We all know that if shashchess carefully followed real people personality highTal would always be true.

[Rebel]

Actually I don't see how you can make personalities from a neural net.

Fiddling with the NNUE score based on the position?

Maybe the author can explain it.

[Antihelion]

But what I do like about ShashChess is that using a Tal, Petrosian or Capablanca setting produces quite varied play, and not *that* much weaker than other top engines.

Proof is needed for the claim that anything amchess has committed into Stockfish is anything but noise.

The proof is in the games produced.

You see, in chess as a hobby, not everything is about statistics and Elo chasing.

If I (as a relatively serious chess coach/tournament player), see the "Capablanca" version of Shashchess play a Caro Kann line, arrange its pieces in a certain very solid way, aim for certain beneficial trades and head for advantageous endgames...

...and then see the " high Tal" version play the EXACT same line, place its pieces dynamically and aim for active play, kingside attacks and focus on dynamics, then this is a stark contrast in playing style, and interesting to me as a CHESS PLAYER.

I don't give a shit what the code changes were or how programmers "measure" such things with 10000 game bullet matches.

I observe the chess and see If I like it.

You are not a chessplayer, so such a "look at the actual games" approach is alien to you.

So I use ShashChess (and the Shashin algorithm) as a TOOL to get ideas for CHESS.

You squabble about the code in online forums, as if on some prove-you're-higher-iq-and-everyone-else-is-dumb quest.

Our goals are different.

A smarter man would train neural networks and filter the data in some good way to induce "style"

Again, here you are throwing around words that imply your feeling of intellectual superiority.

Stop it, be humble. There are millions of people smarter than any of us.

I do agree that filtering data to induce style is very interesting though, as used in the up and coming engine Patricia, for example.

That's a fair and reasonable use case. However, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that amchess still claims, baselessly, that his engine is better than Stockfish at long time controls. As long as amchess still promotes his bogus claims and refuse to learn from those who try to inform him, he will remain a laughing stock for all modern engine developers.

[BrendanJNorman]

Actually I don't see how you can make personalities from a neural net.

Fiddling with the NNUE score based on the position?

Maybe the author can explain it.

I was wondering *how* he does it too.

But as a non-programmer, left it aside.

The play is definitely quite different when any of the "Shashin" modes are switched on.

Would be curious to hear his answer too.

[BrendanJNorman]

But what I do like about ShashChess is that using a Tal, Petrosian or Capablanca setting produces quite varied play, and not *that* much weaker than other top engines.

Proof is needed for the claim that anything amchess has committed into Stockfish is anything but noise.

The proof is in the games produced.

You see, in chess as a hobby, not everything is about statistics and Elo chasing.

If I (as a relatively serious chess coach/tournament player), see the "Capablanca" version of Shashchess play a Caro Kann line, arrange its pieces in a certain very solid way, aim for certain beneficial trades and head for advantageous endgames...

...and then see the " high Tal" version play the EXACT same line, place its pieces dynamically and aim for active play, kingside attacks and focus on dynamics, then this is a stark contrast in playing style, and interesting to me as a CHESS PLAYER.

I don't give a shit what the code changes were or how programmers "measure" such things with 10000 game bullet matches.

I observe the chess and see If I like it.

You are not a chessplayer, so such a "look at the actual games" approach is alien to you.

So I use ShashChess (and the Shashin algorithm) as a TOOL to get ideas for CHESS.

You squabble about the code in online forums, as if on some prove-you're-higher-iq-and-everyone-else-is-dumb quest.

Our goals are different.

A smarter man would train neural networks and filter the data in some good way to induce "style"

Again, here you are throwing around words that imply your feeling of intellectual superiority.

Stop it, be humble. There are millions of people smarter than any of us.

I do agree that filtering data to induce style is very interesting though, as used in the up and coming engine Patricia, for example.

That's a fair and reasonable use case. However, it is completely irrelevant to the fact that amchess still claims, baselessly, that his engine is better than Stockfish at long time controls. As long as amchess still promotes his bogus claims and refuse to learn from those who try to inform him, he will remain a laughing stock for all modern engine developers.

I agree.

I would never claim that ShashChess is stronger than Stockfish default.

How could it be? Would love to see proof though.

Regardless, I do like it as a sort of "Stockfish mod", as you said, for my own use case.

[amchess]

It is obvious that I am the author of Shashin's theory in Stockfish and the rest is from the community.
A long time sprt test on 15000 games is simply impractical.
Therefore, I adopted a different strategy I think more intelligent since it also makes use of the chess concept of positional traits.
200 LTC games out of 100 different positional tracts ended with that gap is largely sufficient evidence that ShashChess is superior at least at that time cadence.
Any person with rudiments of statistics can confirm this, but there is none so deaf as those who will not hear and blind as those who will not see.
Unfortunately, most programmers do not understand this because they are not rated chess players
Now, I also find myself having to restate obviousness.

what a pathetic lie, all of this from start to finish.
If it's so sufficient with your superior understanding, why do you merge all stockfish patches? This question was asked to you like dozens of times and yet no one ever heard an answer.
And answer is simple. Without actually merging actual stockfish gainers you wouldn't be able to keep up small gap that allows you to fluke out tests of even 200 games because you yourself are incapable of producing a single elo of gain in your entire life.
So you shit on stockfish methodology 24/7 while fully merging whatever it produces, [Moderation - deleted personal attack].

This is always puzzling me, all cloners are like "60+0.6 tests are baaaad" and than proceed to merge every single freaking commit inherited from this 60+0.6 tests.
How much of a mental gymnastics you have to do to justify this?
Not to mention that when you are getting called out you go for racial slurs and death threats, which is simply amazing.
And then you cry about getting banned for "superiority of shashchess" while in reality both me and you know the reason, like wishing death to stockfish maintainers (or other people) is smth that should get you out of the community.
[Moderation - deleted personal attack].

I have repeatedly reiterated that SHASHCHESS is a derivative of stockfish and, as such, by definition, incorporates stockfish patches.
My aim is to show that, with Shashin's theory, it can be made more flexible and better both in LTC matches (25+10) and in the solution of complicated positions in which the difference is abysmal (up to 20 positions more than 258).
5 more games won on an LTC match (25+10) with positions drawn all from different positional stretches.
20 more positions out of 258.
Only a blind man could say that the idea of applying Shashin's theory is not useful.
Several strong players, for example, even corr GM have confided to me that they prefer ShashChess to Stockfish, precisely for this reason.
Alexander, on the other hand, still incorporates the classic evaluation function and is intended for human players, implementing a true handicap mode, turning the elements of the evaluation function on and off, depending on the level of play and therefore the relative thinking system. It is not my fault that the community has decided to eliminate it. I repeat that the purpose is different:
the community wants to create a bullet monster. We try to be useful to every type of player. In particular, one OTB needs moves that he understands and for him there is no difference between an entity of 3100 or 3500 elo points.
For the rest, unfortunately, it is the kind of heavy insults/personal attacks that I have been the subject of on discord: when one does not have arguments, he goes personal.
In Latin, we speak of "argumentum ad personam or ad baculum". Nothing new under the sun. I hope that action will be taken against serial abusers/trollers.
In fact, I have always appreciated the work of the community. Simply, I'm trying to adapt Stockfish to every type of player. This is in the spirit of open source. Why does the community make it so if it then has to insult anyone who tries to adapt it to their needs, calling it a cloner (this is also a heavy insult)? Make it private at this point!

Ah btw stop merging my patches into shashchess, they are not good since they are tested at 60+0.6 UHO openings and not your methodology, I look at the code and always wonder what my patches that fail yellow at LTC do there.

Please Viz, keep it civil.

I have repeatedly reiterated that SHASHCHESS is a derivative of stockfish and, as such, by definition, incorporates stockfish patches. Stockfish testing methodology is good for the purpose of the community. My patches for my purposes and I want to be always aligned with latest stockfish code. Vry often I adapt official Stockfish patches with shashin theory and they are even better. This is just part of my methodology.
My aim is to show that, with Shashin's theory, it can be made more flexible and better both in LTC matches (25+10) and in the solution of complicated positions in which the difference is abysmal (up to 20 positions more than 258).
5 more games won on an LTC match (25+10) with positions drawn all from different positional stretches.
20 more positions out of 258.
Only a blind man could say that the idea of applying Shashin's theory is not useful.
Several strong mail-order players, for example, even GM have confided to me that they prefer ShashChess to Stockfish, precisely for this reason.
AleanderAnder, on the other hand, still incorporates the classic evaluation function and is intended for human players, implementing a true handicap mode, turning the elements of the evaluation function on and off, depending on the level of play and therefore the relative thinking sy It is not my fault that the community has taken a disastrous decision to eliminate it. I repeat that the purpose is different:
the community wants to create a bullet monster. We try to be useful to every type of player. In particular, one OTB needs moves that he understands and for him there is no difference between an entity of 3100 or 3500 elo points.
For the rest, unfortunately, it is the kind of heavy insults/personal attacks that I have been the subject of on discord: when you do not have arguments, you go personal.
In Latin, we speak of argumentum ad personam or ad baculum. Nothing new under the sun. I hope that action will be taken against serial abusers.
In fact, I have always appreciated the work of the community. Simply, I'm trying to adapt Stockfish to every type of player. This is in the spirit of open source. Why does the community make it so if it then has to insult anyone who tries to adapt it to their needs, calling it a cloner (this is also a heavy insult)? Make it private at this point!

[AndrewGrant]

People see what they want to see when it comes to "engine personality". Its almost always fake. Shashchess is no different.

[Antihelion]

I'd say that chess engines reflect their author's personality, and that ShashChess plays like a deranged man.