Page 1 of 7

Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:39 pm
by Rodolfo Leoni
It happens that I'm playing correspondence chess and, with the help of the very special Daniel's code, I'm still undefeated in master tournaments after almost 100 completed games.

Some time ago, I sent a novelty to Stefan Pohl. It was a move uncovered by Cerebellum, much stronger than Cerebellum best move and worth of analysis. Within 24 hours the move was included and Stefan provided me a link to a Cerebellum prerelease. I want to acknowledge Stefan because he's been very helpful and friendly. Cerebellum analyses were kind of a disaster, tough, but I'm not the author and I thought it was better to avoid insisting with my analyses.

Few days ago, I mailed (directly to Thomas Zipproth) another novelty 70 cps stronger than Cerebellum best move. Seventy centipawns/00 :!: No answer. No thanks, no "please avoid sending me moves again", absolute silence.

I found a third very strong novelty yesterday, not included in Cerebellum. But why should I share it? I feel like an idiot, and I probably am!

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:44 pm
by Ovyron
Ha! I find refutations for Cerebellum lines on a regular basis. The thing is, these refutations may be so deep, that the new moves may not be playable in anything other than correspondence games, because soon enough the engine will be out of book and 10 minutes per move might not be enough to play the advantageous position right.

The main use of Cerebellum is being able to predict what moves a "Cerebellum slave" will play and manage to come on top by forcing them into one of those holes :)

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 10:52 pm
by Rodolfo Leoni
Ovyron wrote:Ha! I find refutations for Cerebellum lines on a regular basis. The thing is, these refutations may be so deep, that the new moves may not be playable in anything other than correspondence games, because soon enough the engine will be out of book and 10 minutes per move might not be enough to play the advantageous position right.

The main use of Cerebellum is being able to predict what moves a "Cerebellum slave" will play and manage to come on top by forcing them into one of those holes :)
If a book really wants to be claimed as the world strongest I think it should be deep enough, large enough to bring an engine (or a human) to safe positions when opponent goes out of book. If not, it's more similar to a tic-tac-toe book. I's better I play without it, then.

BTW... Don't go in zeitnot in our games.... :P

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Sun Jan 28, 2018 11:52 pm
by Rodolfo Leoni
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:It happens that I'm playing correspondence chess and, with the help of the very special Daniel's code, I'm still undefeated in master tournaments after almost 100 completed games.

Some time ago, I sent a novelty to Stefan Pohl. It was a move uncovered by Cerebellum, much stronger than Cerebellum best move and worth of analysis. Within 24 hours the move was included and Stefan provided me a link to a Cerebellum prerelease. I want to acknowledge Stefan because he's been very helpful and friendly. Cerebellum analyses were kind of a disaster, tough, but I'm not the author and I thought it was better to avoid insisting with my analyses.

Few days ago, I mailed (directly to Thomas Zipproth) another novelty 70 cps stronger than Cerebellum best move. Seventy centipawns/00 :!: No answer. No thanks, no "please avoid sending me moves again", absolute silence.

I found a third very strong novelty yesterday, not included in Cerebellum. But why should I share it? I feel like an idiot, and I probably am!
I just received an e-mail from Thomas Zipproth. He thanks me and both two moves were included in Cerebellum. So... my apologies for my bad post. I sometimes am too much emotive. :oops:

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 6:31 am
by Ozymandias
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:It happens that I'm playing correspondence chess and, with the help of the very special Daniel's code, I'm still undefeated in master tournaments after almost 100 completed games.

Some time ago, I sent a novelty to Stefan Pohl. It was a move uncovered by Cerebellum, much stronger than Cerebellum best move and worth of analysis. Within 24 hours the move was included and Stefan provided me a link to a Cerebellum prerelease. I want to acknowledge Stefan because he's been very helpful and friendly. Cerebellum analyses were kind of a disaster, tough, but I'm not the author and I thought it was better to avoid insisting with my analyses.

Few days ago, I mailed (directly to Thomas Zipproth) another novelty 70 cps stronger than Cerebellum best move. Seventy centipawns/00 :!: No answer. No thanks, no "please avoid sending me moves again", absolute silence.

I found a third very strong novelty yesterday, not included in Cerebellum. But why should I share it? I feel like an idiot, and I probably am!
I just received an e-mail from Thomas Zipproth. He thanks me and both two moves were included in Cerebellum. So... my apologies for my bad post. I sometimes am too much emotive. :oops:
Was his reply timestamped before or after your first post here?

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:56 am
by Ovyron
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:So... my apologies for my bad post. I sometimes am too much emotive. :oops:
It works for me. I may stick around because I'm addicted to Computer Chess (managed to quit that addiction for 1.5 Years. Didn't find anything better, had to come back to it), but some drama like this now and then is appreciated.

One day I started reading some old threads to see what I missed in my absence, and I happened to like reading those that were closed by moderation, there's some morbid feeling about it, so I quite like when people get emotive, and passionate about the topics they talk about. Thanks for this thread.

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 8:58 am
by Rodolfo Leoni
Ozymandias wrote:
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:
Rodolfo Leoni wrote:It happens that I'm playing correspondence chess and, with the help of the very special Daniel's code, I'm still undefeated in master tournaments after almost 100 completed games.

Some time ago, I sent a novelty to Stefan Pohl. It was a move uncovered by Cerebellum, much stronger than Cerebellum best move and worth of analysis. Within 24 hours the move was included and Stefan provided me a link to a Cerebellum prerelease. I want to acknowledge Stefan because he's been very helpful and friendly. Cerebellum analyses were kind of a disaster, tough, but I'm not the author and I thought it was better to avoid insisting with my analyses.

Few days ago, I mailed (directly to Thomas Zipproth) another novelty 70 cps stronger than Cerebellum best move. Seventy centipawns/00 :!: No answer. No thanks, no "please avoid sending me moves again", absolute silence.

I found a third very strong novelty yesterday, not included in Cerebellum. But why should I share it? I feel like an idiot, and I probably am!
I just received an e-mail from Thomas Zipproth. He thanks me and both two moves were included in Cerebellum. So... my apologies for my bad post. I sometimes am too much emotive. :oops:
Was his reply timestamped before or after your first post here?
Few minutes after.... I thought Thomas was very busy but after reading the post he decided to reply. But it doesn't really matter. I was a bit confused and it's clear he appreciated my hints, so I'll send him a pgn with full analyses of the novelties. :wink:

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 12:38 pm
by Jouni
What do You think about this message in SF forum:

"sign up with ICCF and let stockfish make ALL the moves with no intervention on human part - in all probability your rating will not go over 2200"

I don't believe this with 3300 engine!

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 3:42 pm
by pijl
Jouni wrote:What do You think about this message in SF forum:

"sign up with ICCF and let stockfish make ALL the moves with no intervention on human part - in all probability your rating will not go over 2200"
This statement is probably true, although it may depend a little on the amount of time/processors you have at your disposal
Jouni wrote:I don't believe this with 3300 engine!
A matter of comparing apples and oranges. The rating scales are not comparable.

Re: Cerebellum, correspondence chess and me

Posted: Mon Jan 29, 2018 4:04 pm
by Milos
pijl wrote:
Jouni wrote:What do You think about this message in SF forum:

"sign up with ICCF and let stockfish make ALL the moves with no intervention on human part - in all probability your rating will not go over 2200"
This statement is probably true, although it may depend a little on the amount of time/processors you have at your disposal
Time control is known, 864000+259200s. Processors if you have at least 16 at your disposal mean very little.
At that TC and with 16 cores Xeon server with 128GB of RAM and Cerebelum limited to 8 moves for example, newest SFdev alone would have ICCF rating of 2600+ and probably not lose a single game.