Perhaps you should read other people's posts more carefully, and then you might "get it".kranium wrote: ↑Sun Jul 07, 2019 3:43 pmEngines play the openings and endgames badly?
But, playing against the strongest humans, SF and/or LC0 would not lose a single game, and probably give up very few draws, if any...
even against the most 'opening' savvy/prepared GM.
How have some humans determined these engines are playing badly? I don't get it.
Seems a bit pretentious...or some desperate need to remain relevant.
The context of that discussion (which you cut out of your reply) was obviously about the claim that NN engines play more "human-like" chess than AB engines. It was nothing to do with engines playing "badly" compared with humans.
The point was about whether humans can tell AB moves from NN moves. I doubt they can, which if true suggests it's not true that one type of engine has a more "human-like" style. This has been discussed in this forum before. When it was discussed before, there was an objection that we could tell because NN engines supposedly play the openings better than AB engines. There's also the objection that AB engines play the endgames better than NN engines. (Lc0 has in endgames played like a troll and that might allow the human seeing those moves to identify the player as Lc0 and not SF.) If those objections are correct, then the human might be able to tell SF from Lc because of SF's relatively "bad" opening play compared with Lc, and Lc's relatively "bad" endgame play compared with SF.
That's why the test of humans' ability to tell AB and NN engines apart was proposed to be middlegame positions.
It had nothing to do with comparing engine strength with human strength. (It had nothing to do with playing strength at all, unless that might reveal the player's identity.) It had nothing to do with being "pretentious" or having a "desperate need". If you wish to misunderstand completely other people's posts, you might try at least to misunderstand them in a more polite way.