Time to revise modern theory

Discussion of anything and everything relating to chess playing software and machines.

Moderators: hgm, Dann Corbit, Harvey Williamson

Forum rules
This textbox is used to restore diagrams posted with the [d] tag before the upgrade.
Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:34 pm

whereagles wrote:I find it hard to believe that all the above lines are losing, but it could be.
this thread is just a forewarning, not to be too surprised, when Houdini 5 (not so much), but some 200-300 elo stronger engines tell you in the future: this opening is lost for black, this opening is lost for black, and also this one, while that one is lost for white.

Be certain, many other opening will fall. It migth be the case that the Sicilian Sveshnikov is lost, the open Ruy Lopez is lost, the 2 knights are almost certainly lost, though engines do not think so, the Petrov of main systems migth also be either lost or on the verge of losing, etc.

It is not clear if the game is a draw. Only taking stock of last couple of TCEC editions, with increasing engine strength, white wins only grow and grow...

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:48 pm

Maharadja wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: Remember what I will say: if current top chess engines are 3300 or so, chess will be solved not before this number reaches 7000.
From your posts and claims it looks like you are already somewhere between 6500 and 7000.
Many non-titled players on this forum are way too strong for their elo.

For example, Peter is at least 3500, and Dann may already be above 4000. :)
Analysing daily with engines and playing many computer games certainly has its powerful say on performance.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Too funny

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:51 pm

Guenther wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:1. g4 seems to be the only losing move for white.
1.f3 holds after white proceeds with e3 and d4, while, I find this extremely funny, 1.Nh3 (1.Na3 is resolved similarly) does not lose, but there is a single drawing move after 1...d5 (1...e5 is weaker, white should hold after f3 and Nf2)

[d]rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p4/8/7N/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq d6 0 2[/d]

guess what this move is?

2.g3 loses after black plays e5, h5-h4, while on any other second white move black captures on h3, winning, though engines do not think so)

rigth 2.Ng1!!! :) :) (Bulgarian chess players call this system 'Come wolf, eat me.')

Liked it?

I wonder when SF will find Ng1 above, in a century or so?
Now you have gone completely astray in your astrological universe?
Congrats for the 30 men tablebases implant from Uranus.
May be it's already too late for help.
Ng1 is not difficult to find for a person with Sun in Gemini, ascendant in Scorpio and moon in Aquarius. :)

Stockfish will not see it though, it lacks elegance...

Henk
Posts: 6830
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 8:31 am

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by Henk » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:52 pm

Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote:
Maharadja wrote:
Lyudmil Tsvetkov wrote: Remember what I will say: if current top chess engines are 3300 or so, chess will be solved not before this number reaches 7000.
From your posts and claims it looks like you are already somewhere between 6500 and 7000.
Many non-titled players on this forum are way too strong for their elo.

For example, Peter is at least 3500, and Dann may already be above 4000. :)
Analysing daily with engines and playing many computer games certainly has its powerful say on performance.
My ELO is 800 for I copy Skippers playing style too much.

Lyudmil Tsvetkov
Posts: 6052
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 10:41 am

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by Lyudmil Tsvetkov » Tue Nov 08, 2016 3:00 pm

drj4759 wrote:There is no exact boundary of opening, middlegame and endgame, my statement is a generalization. Chess endgame definition is dependent on the person who interprets its, it means so many parameters.

Current chess engines technology could not solve opening, middle game or endgame by itself. It is the opening database or endgame database that is making it happen as these are reducing it to science. Middlegame database will wait until the opening database is near perfect.

For as long as there are idiot chess engines, Stockfish and Komodo will continue to gain ELO points. If Stockfish, Brainfish or Komodo will self-play against themselves, the ELO difference is close to 0 even without opening or endgame databases. If they make improvements from their previous versions, that is where the ELO is gained.

Chess engines ELO ratings are not standard. One can choose what they want. I can have top ELO rating of 10,000 in my rating list if I am inspired. Right now, Stockfish 8 is 3500+ in my rating list.

I consider the chess game solved when Stockfish vs. Komodo or any top chess engine play against each other with the help of opening + middlegame + endgame books and it always ends in a draw. It is not yet here today, but it will be probably in the future.
can't you really understand it?

what Cerebellum would do would do is completely meaningless. You say it will analyse to ply 36, and then analyse another 36 plies deeper, etc. Imagine the following scenario: at ply 3 SF has a node with eval 30cps, which is actually just 10cps, and another node with eval -20cps, which is actually 40cps. It prunes the second node in some way, and further proceeds to depth 36 with the first node, and then another 36 plies, returning the score. Now, that 'best move' is completely meaningless, as SF has already missed the much better other choice because of wrong eval.

Until engines have perfect eval, and try to prune even a single node, which they do amply, finding an ultimate best move is simply impossible.

Dann Corbit
Posts: 12125
Joined: Wed Mar 08, 2006 7:57 pm
Location: Redmond, WA USA
Contact:

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by Dann Corbit » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:33 pm

For "Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation. Polugayevsky Variation; 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5; CaxtonID: 2152 ECO: B96" it looks like a draw to me also.
For each of the other positions, I see a clear disadvantage for the side to move, but I do not think they are certain losses.

[d]rnbq1rk1/1pp2pbp/3p1np1/p2Pp3/2P1P1P1/2N2N1P/PP3P2/R1BQKB1R b KQ - acd 38; acs 1899; bm Na6; cce -84; ce -30; pm Na6 {85} c6 {6} Ne8 {4} Nfd7 {4} Nbd7 {2} h5 {1}; pv Na6 Be3 h5 g5 Nd7 a3 Nb6 Qc2 c6 Nd2 Bd7 O-O-O Rc8 dxc6 Rxc6 Kb1 a4 Nb5 Qb8 Bxb6 Rxb6 Qxa4 Nc5 Qa5 Ra6 Qc3 Ne6 Qe3 Rc8 Nc3 Nf4 h4 Ra8 f3 b6 Rh2 Qc7 Nb3 Bc6 Nd5 Bxd5 cxd5 Qd8; white_wins 32; black_wins 18; draws 24;

[d]rnbq1rk1/ppp2pbp/3p1np1/3Pp3/2P1P3/2N2N1P/PP3PP1/R1BQKB1R b KQ - acd 38; acs 4140; bm a5; cce -66; ce -40; pm a5 {1823} Na6 {1630} Nbd7 {554} Nh5 {479} c6 {118} c5 {35} Ne8 {33} h6 {16} Qe8 {9} Bd7 {6} Kh8 {3} Nfd7 {3} Qe7 {2} a6 {2} h5 {2} Bxh3 {1}; pv a5 Be3 Na6 g4 h5 g5 Nd7 a3 Nac5 Qc2 f5 gxf6 Qxf6 Be2 a4 Nb5 Ra5 Nxc7 Nb3 Rd1 Ndc5 Nb5 Ra6 Ng5 Bd7 h4 Bxb5 cxb5 Raa8 O-O Rac8 Bc4 Nd4 Bxd4 exd4 f4 d3 Bxd3 Qxb2 Qxb2 Bxb2 Ne6 Nxe6 dxe6; white_wins 1497; black_wins 995; draws 887; Opening ECO:E90p; King's Indian: 5.Nf3 O-O 6.h3 e5 7.d5; 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 g6 3.Nc3 Bg7 4.e4 d6 5.Nf3 O-O 6.h3 e5 7.d5 *;

[d]rnbqkb1r/1p3ppp/p2ppn2/6B1/3NPP2/2N5/PPP3PP/R2QKB1R b KQkq - acd 42; acs 2713; bm Qb6; c3 "Qb6"; cce 3; ce 0; id "es-dc-neutral.0595"; pm Qb6 {11859} Be7 {4243} Nbd7 {3465} Qc7 {3145} b5 {668} h6 {581} Nc6 {462} Bd7 {161} Qa5 {7} e5 {4} Ke7 {2}; pv Qb6 Qd2 Qxb2 Rb1 Qa3 f5 Nc6 fxe6 fxe6 Nxc6 bxc6 Be2 Be7 O-O O-O Rb3 Qc5+ Be3 Qe5 Bd4 Qa5 Bb6 Qe5 Bd4; white_wins 8774; black_wins 8923; draws 4906; Opening Sicilian Defense: Najdorf Variation. Polugayevsky Variation; 1.e4 c5 2.Nf3 d6 3.d4 cxd4 4.Nxd4 Nf6 5.Nc3 a6 6.Bg5 e6 7.f4 b5; CaxtonID: 2152 ECO: B96;

[d]rnbqkb1r/ppp1pppp/1n1p4/4P3/2PP1P2/8/PP4PP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - acd 38; acs 1344; bm dxe5; c3 "dxe5"; cce -72; ce -34; id "C.A.P. 445103"; pm dxe5 {1612} Bf5 {495} g6 {221} g5 {75} Nc6 {17} e6 {7} c5 {6}; pv dxe5 fxe5 Bf5 Nc3 e6 Nf3 Nc6 Be3 Be7 Be2 O-O Qd2 f6 exf6 Bxf6 O-O Qe7 Rad1 Rad8 h3 Bg6 c5 Nd5 Bf2 Kh8 Nxd5 exd5 Bb5 Qd7 Bg3 Be4 Bxc6 Qxc6 Qa5 b6 Qxa7 bxc5 Qxc7 Qxc7 Bxc7; white_wins 1071; black_wins 695; draws 546; Opening Alekhine Defense: Four Pawns Attack. Trifunovic Variation; 1.e4 Nf6 2.e5 Nd5 3.d4 d6 4.c4 Nb6 5.f4 Bf5; CaxtonID: 6 ECO: B03;

[d]rnbqkb1r/pppp1ppp/8/4P3/2P1P1n1/8/PP3PPP/RNBQKBNR b KQkq - acd 38; acs 2160; bm Nxe5; cce -65; ce -28; id "C.A.P. 445338"; pm Nxe5 {758} d6 {41} h5 {40} Bb4+ {4} Nxf2 {1}; pv Nxe5 f4 Nec6 Nc3 Bc5 Na4 Bb4+ Bd2 Qe7 Bxb4 Qxb4+ Kf2 Qe7 g3 O-O Nc3 Re8 Nf3 d6 Bg2 Bg4 Re1 a5 Kg1 Nd7 Qd2 Nc5 Nd4 Nxd4 Qxd4 Ne6 Qd2 Nc5 b3 Qd8 h3 Be6 Kh2 f6 Rad1 Qd7 h4; white_wins 216; black_wins 148; draws 104; Opening Budapest Defense: Alekhine Variation. Tartakower Defense; 1.d4 Nf6 2.c4 e5 3.dxe5 Ng4 4.e4 d6; CaxtonID: 233 ECO: A52;

[d]rnbqkbnr/ppp1pppp/8/3p4/8/7N/PPPPPPPP/RNBQKB1R w KQkq - acd 38; acs 4200; bm d4; cce -36; ce -42; id "C.A.P. 445648"; pm g3 {44} d4 {4} e3 {2} Ng5 {1}; pv d4 Nf6 Nf4 c5 e3 Nc6 Bb5 e6 O-O Bd7 dxc5 Bxc5 c4 a6 Bxc6 Bxc6 cxd5 Nxd5 Nxd5 Bxd5 Qc2 Bb6 Nc3 Bc6 e4 O-O Bf4 Qe7 Rad1 Rfd8 Rfe1 Rac8 Be3 Bxe3 Rxe3 b5 a3 Rxd1+ Qxd1 Rd8; white_wins 17; black_wins 21; draws 12;
Taking ideas is not a vice, it is a virtue. We have another word for this. It is called learning.
But sharing ideas is an even greater virtue. We have another word for this. It is called teaching.

whereagles
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:03 am

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by whereagles » Tue Nov 08, 2016 7:37 pm

All the above is quite irrelevant.. what we need to know is what happens to the KING'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED :D

rainhaus
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:26 pm

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by rainhaus » Tue Nov 08, 2016 8:11 pm

whereagles wrote:All the above is quite irrelevant.. what we need to know is what happens to the KING'S GAMBIT ACCEPTED :D
KGA is already refuted by Vasik Rajlich and his Rybka.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-bu ... e-for-sure

(My tip: have a closer look on the publishing date of this research report : ) )
Thread viewImage
flat view
is a bad view
without thread view

whereagles
Posts: 565
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 11:03 am

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by whereagles » Wed Nov 09, 2016 1:10 am

rainhaus wrote: KGA is already refuted by Vasik Rajlich and his Rybka.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-bu ... e-for-sure
Does Rybka cluster analysis hold to this day?

rainhaus
Posts: 143
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 6:26 pm

Re: Time to revise modern theory

Post by rainhaus » Wed Nov 09, 2016 6:57 pm

whereagles wrote:
rainhaus wrote: KGA is already refuted by Vasik Rajlich and his Rybka.

http://en.chessbase.com/post/rajlich-bu ... e-for-sure
Does Rybka cluster analysis hold to this day?
There was no analysis at all. It was an artfully staged April Fool's joke by ChessBase with the friendly support of Vasik Rajlich and many readers were duped by this hoax. The same procedure as every year, but this time the Hamburgians had made an XX-L effort to fool the community :)

Sorry for exhuming this old joke, but in view of your question and the megalomaniac context of this thread I couldn't resist.

https://en.chessbase.com/post/the-cheba ... -revisited
http://www.talkchess.com/forum/viewtopi ... 84&t=43129
Thread viewImage
flat view
is a bad view
without thread view

Post Reply