Ethereal 12 (3400) loses to God! (Most Amazing Game I've Seen)

[jp]

Plato despised art.

Really? Can you provide a quote? That's Plato's loss then.

[Dann Corbit]

Google search will turn up a lot more:
https://decodedpast.com/platos-argument ... imitation/

He had some love for art, after all, he wrote all those dialogs, and that was art.

[Milos]

I ran a tourney, Minic versus itself from position where Ethereal blunder

[d] 4r1k1/1p3p1p/3Q2p1/4b1P1/3R3P/1P6/p3r3/K2R4 w - - 5 50

at very fast TC (10s+0.25) to create engine weakness

Not converged but

Code: Select all

Score of minic_dev vs minic_dev: 12 - 9 - 29  [0.530] 50
Elo difference: 21.3 +/- 64.3, LOS: 74.4 %, DrawRatio: 57.1 %

What makes it a "blunder"?

Stockfish's change in eval?

Can you explain in plain language why it is a blunder? I can't and I'm a chess coach.

My point of sharing this game was that someone (engine or not) was able to sacrifice a queen for a bishop, allow a reduction in material, and STILL have the opponent fighting for survival.

And an opponent who is a top 10 engine and about 500-600 Elo stronger than Magnus Carlsen.

I look at such things as a chessplayer. To merely paste into a GUI, watch for eval jump and declare "blunder!" is kind of lame to me.

Probably I should hang out at a chess forum instead.

Problem is you look at this a chess coach and think you should be able to understand. That's just arrogance. That's like taking someone who doesn't even understand the rules of chess and expecting him to understand grandmaster level game. That is the difference between Lc0 and you - 1600 Elo at least.

[Marek Soszynski]

In what way do you think the painting is lying to you??

You think a painting represents precisely? Or a novel is full of facts? Or a sixty-minute movie covers an hour's worth of events?

[BrendanJNorman]

Problem is you look at this a chess coach and think you should be able to understand. That's just arrogance.

No.

What is arrogance, is your typical manner of wading into threads preset with a combative and condescending tone.

What is arrogance, is presuming to know what I am thinking.

What is arrogance, is misrepresenting my words.

I didn't say that I don't "understand" Lc0's sacrifice, the motifs are absolutely clear (advanced passed pawn combined with color complex domination and restriction/overload of enemy pieces via the permanent pin, resulted in a positional domination scenario).

Those who were paying attention would have noticed that I was asking Vivien to explain why the move Qd5 was a blunder (assuming that Qc5 is winning)...because it ISN'T.

Stockfish just takes a long time to see this.

I said that I cannot explain in clear language why it is a blunder (and mentioned that I'm a coach), as a sort of hint to her that she is missing something.

Such a style of communication is good because instead of feeding somebody an answer, it invites them to think more deeply and question their assumptions.

If you dropped the combative mentality and read for meaning/intent (instead of looking for holes/inconsistencies/targets for attack), you'd have realized this too.

What you've done here is not point out my "arrogance", but clumsily exposed your own.

That's like taking someone who doesn't even understand the rules of chess and expecting him to understand grandmaster level game.

Not really. Somebody who has zero foundation at all lacks the basic building blocks to even speak on chess, while a strongish player (I'm around 2200ish strength) who is also a long time coach, is much better equipped to analyze, break down and describe what he is seeing on the board.

He might not be able to reproduce the same level of chess, but he can understand what is going on. The same concept works with sports commentators who are often strong, but not top-level players of the sport they are speaking about. Joe Rogan commentating on UFC is an example.

In other words, weak analogy.

That is the difference between Lc0 and you - 1600 Elo at least.

Let me know when lc0 reaches 3800 Elo on a stock graphics card. I'll be waiting.

[BrendanJNorman]

By this measure, neither the Evergreen game nor the Immortal game is beautiful.

It seems like you are a chess player who uses engines to explore his passion, rather than an I.T nerd who uses chess to explore his passion.

We seem to be rare on this site.

[BrendanJNorman]

Wow … a gem of a game indeed! Incredible how forceful that bishop pin was. Even with a Queen and two rooks and what looked like an exposed King … yet it seemed that it was impossible to untangle. Probably somewhere at some time, material had to be returned. I can't but imagine how a human would have felt … being up a queen and still having 2 rooks on board and yet being helpless. Funny how even a queen down … still able to play quiet pawn moves … Lc0 was always a little sadistic

Yep. It's a really nice example of domination by a smaller army...great stuff.

[BrendanJNorman]

I have been studying and playing chess seriously for 20 years, and in all this time, I have NEVER seen a game like this.

I have been very impressed with Ethereal 12, it is very, very strong and now with a more refined positional style to boot.

But the way Lc0, even on my very weak hardware (laptop with built-in Nividia card) beat it from a position where Ethereal thought it was +4 is the most amazing thing I've EVER seen.

Witness this amazing game.

[pgn][Event "Elites Sharp, Blitz 3min+2sec-1"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "2020.04.03"]
[Round "2.7"]
[White "Ethereal 12.00 (PEXT)"]
[Black "Lc0 v0.23.2+git.c8d9095, 58462."]
[Result "0-1"]
[ECO "A55"]
[Annotator "1.34;1.10"]
[PlyCount "154"]
[EventDate "2020.04.02"]
[EventType "tourn"]
[SourceTitle "Fritz Engine Tournament"]
[Source "Doe"]

{Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8565U CPU @ 1.80GHz 1992 MHz W=19.9 plies; 2,081kN/s;
239,128 TBAs B=9.5 plies; 4kN/s; 609 TBAs} 1. d4 Nf6 2. c4 d6 3. Nc3 Nbd7 4. e4
e5 5. Nf3 c6 6. Be2 exd4 7. Nxd4 {1.34/16 8} g6 {1.10/7 5 (Ne5)} 8. Bf4 {
1.16/20 22} Nc5 {1.17/10 6} 9. f3 {1.54/21 17} Nh5 {1.25/12 7} 10. Be3 {
1.50/20 6} Bg7 {1.20/12 1} 11. g3 {1.30/19 9 (g4)} a5 {0.97/9 12 (0-0)} 12. Qd2
{1.47/20 11} a4 {1.02/10 2} 13. O-O-O {1.35/22 14} Qe7 {0.99/10 7 (Qa5)} 14. g4
{1.84/20 9} Nf6 {1.05/12 3} 15. Bf4 {1.66/20 7 (Nc2)} Bxg4 {1.55/10 13} 16. Qe3
{1.87/22 7 (Nc2)} O-O {1.45/9 5} 17. fxg4 {1.80/22 6} a3 {1.11/11 4 (Nfxe4)}
18. b3 {2.31/22 15} Nfxe4 {0.97/13 4 (Rfe8)} 19. Bf3 {2.10/22 9 (Nxe4)} Nxc3 {
0.80/14 6} 20. Qxe7 {2.22/23 5} Nxa2+ {1.03/15 3} 21. Kb1 {2.08/23 4 (Kd2)} Nb4
{0.08/11 7} 22. Qe3 {2.00/23 13} a2+ {0.36/11 12 (Ne6)} 23. Kb2 {2.31/24 7} Ne6
{0.18/19 3} 24. Bxd6 {2.26/21 3 (Bh6)} c5 {-0.13/10 5 (a1Q+)} 25. Bxc5 {
2.80/23 12 (Bxb7)} Nxc5 {-0.24/11 6} 26. Kc3 {2.70/22 3} Nba6 {0.17/14 5 (Nc6)}
27. Bd5 {2.65/20 11 (b4)} Nc7 {-0.38/13 6} 28. Kc2 {2.04/21 12} Nxd5 {-0.27/13
4} 29. cxd5 {2.10/21 7} Na6 {-0.38/11 11 (Rfe8)} 30. Kb2 {2.28/19 6} Nc7 {
-0.60/10 4 (Nb4)} 31. Rd2 {2.02/19 8 (Ka1)} Nxd5 {-0.69/9 8 (Rfd8)} 32. Qg3 {
1.06/20 6 (Qe4)} Nb4 {-0.96/9 7 (Rfd8)} 33. Ra1 {1.09/21 2 (Rhd1)} Rad8 {
-0.74/9 6 (Rfd8)} 34. Qc3 {2.32/20 3 (Rxa2)} Nc6 {-1.34/14 5} 35. Rad1 {
1.55/20 4 (Rxa2)} Nxd4 {-0.39/10 10 (Ra8)} 36. Rxd4 {5.00/18 2} Rc8 {-0.28/9 5}
37. Qb4 {5.13/19 1} Ra8 {-0.21/9 2} 38. Ka1 {4.78/19 2} Rfe8 {-0.13/8 9 (Rfd8)}
39. Qc3 {4.84/16 2 (g5)} Rec8 {-0.07/7 9 (h6)} 40. Qd2 {4.44/19 5 (Qb2)} Rd8 {
-0.03/6 7 (Re8)} 41. Qb2 {5.00/19 4 (Qf4)} Rdc8 {0.11/7 5 (Re8)} 42. g5 {
5.51/19 3} Rf8 {0.28/7 5} 43. Rf1 {5.62/18 2 (h4)} Rfe8 {0.17/6 4 (h6)} 44. Qc3
{4.80/18 2 (b4)} Rac8 {0.05/8 5} 45. Qd2 {4.80/20 2} Rc2 {0.24/10 3 (Re2)} 46.
Qf4 {5.60/19 3} Kh8 {0.25/9 4} 47. h4 {5.43/19 2} Rce2 {0.14/9 6} 48. Rfd1 {
5.70/20 2} Kg8 {0.09/8 3} 49. Qd6 {5.80/20 2 (h5)} Be5 {0.02/7 9 (Ra8)} 50. Qd5
{5.82/20 3 (Qc5)} Rc8 {-0.32/8 4 (Rf2)} 51. Qd7 {5.59/19 2 (b4)} Rcc2 {-0.36/9
4 (Ra8)} 52. Rf1 {4.25/19 2 (Qd5)} Rc7 {-0.42/10 3} 53. Qd8+ {1.98/18 2 (Qd5)}
Kg7 {-0.56/8 0} 54. Rfd1 {0.97/20 3 (Qd5)} Rcc2 {-0.71/9 6 (Rc6)} 55. Qd5 {
0.67/22 2} h5 {-0.62/10 3 (Kh8)} 56. gxh6+ {3.52/17 2} Kxh6 {-0.54/10 2} 57.
Rh1 {3.98/19 2 (Qd8)} b6 {-0.77/8 10 (Rb2)} 58. Rhd1 {4.24/19 3 (h5)} b5 {
-0.83/7 3 (Rb2)} 59. Rh1 {4.29/18 2 (h5)} Rc8 {-0.91/7 3} 60. Rhd1 {3.53/17 2
(Rf1)} b4 {-0.83/8 3 (Rcc2)} 61. Rf1 {0.01/23 2 (h5)} Rcc2 {-0.51/8 3 (Rc7)}
62. h5 {0.01/25 3} g5 {-0.51/9 1} 63. Rh1 {0.01/25 2 (Qd8)} Rc3 {-0.82/7 3
(Rc7)} 64. Qd8 {0.00/24 2 (Rf1)} Rf3 {-1.01/7 3 (Kh7)} 65. Rg1 {0.00/21 3
(Rhd1)} g4 {-1.68/7 1 (Kh7)} 66. Qb6+ {-5.19/19 2 (Qf8+)} Kh7 {-1.86/8 2} 67.
Qc5 {-5.73/18 2} g3 {-2.35/8 1} 68. Qxe5 {-6.09/17 2 (Qc4)} Rxe5 {-5.88/8 2}
69. Rg4 {-6.48/18 3} f5 {-6.23/10 3 (Ree3)} 70. R4xg3 {-5.35/17 2} Rxg3 {
-6.69/11 1} 71. Rxg3 {-5.52/19 2} Kh6 {-7.40/10 2} 72. Rg1 {-9.61/18 2 (Rh3)}
Kxh5 {-9.51/7 3 (Ra5)} 73. Rf1 {-10.65/19 3} Rb5 {-10.47/7 2 (Ra5)} 74. Kxa2 {
-5.60/17 2 (Kb2)} Kg4 {-11.40/7 3} 75. Rg1+ {-8.64/18 2 (Kb2)} Kf3 {-12.53/6 3}
76. Rg8 {-10.47/20 2 (Rg5)} f4 {-16.14/6 2} 77. Rf8 {-12.64/18 3 (Rg1)} Kg4 {
-16.18/6 3 (Kg3)} 0-1[/pgn]

To do this to a weak engine is one thing...but to Ethereal?

With a BISHOP vs a queen?

What the hell is going on here? Amazing.

Very entertaining game ! All on the pin in d4, and the so powerful bishop on the a1 h8 diagonal. Nice !

Yep. And such a game is already stunning on its own, but when you factor in the strength of the opposition it was really amazing.

[BrendanJNorman]

I'm with BrendanJNorman.
My first rule of a beautiful/amazing game is to play through it with Winboard.
The importance of this step cannot be over-emphasized.
For instance, if you analyze the Immoral game or the Evergreen game, the computer will point out "blunders" like not capturing a piece that was offered. But when you watch the game unfold unaided, it is a thing of beauty. This game is one of those.

Yes, good advice. I often tell my students to play through games over a physical board and analyze completely unaided.

And I know FM level players who, when watching online broadcasts of big tournaments switch off the engine kibitzing (often built into the site these days).

It is tough to appreciate a game when there is an engine nagging in the background, and almost impossible to improve your own analytical ability.

[Alayan]

By this measure, neither the Evergreen game nor the Immortal game is beautiful.

The "magnificent" move of the evergreen is a mistake, making a winning position into a draw against proper defense, so I'd say it's overrated.