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

[jp]

After this "Blunder" black is still in trouble after a 44 ply search with millions of tablebase hits

r4rk1/1p2qpbp/2pp1np1/2n5/2PNPBP1/pPN1Q3/P3B2P/2KR3R b - - acd 44; bm Nfxe4; c3 "Nfxe4"; ce -221; pm Nfxe4; pv Nfxe4 Bf3 Nxc3 Qxe7 Nxa2+ Kd2 Rfe8 Qxd6 Bxd4 Qxd4 Nxb3+ Kc2 Nxd4+ Rxd4 Nb4+ Kb3 c5 Rd6 a2 Ra1 Rab8 Bd2 b5 Rd7 bxc4+ Kxc4 Rb6 Kxc5 Reb8 Bxb4 Rb5+ Kd6 R8b6+ Kc7 Rxb4 Rxa2 Rf6 Ra3 Rc4+ Kd8 Rcf4 Bd1 Kg7 h3 Re6 Bf3 Re5 Rc3 Kh6 Rcd3 Kg7 Ra3 Rg5 Bd1 Re5 Kc7 Rc5+ Kd6 Rg5 Rd3 Ra5 Rb7 Rf6+ Kc7 Rf4 Kb6 Re5 Rbd7 Rb4+ Kc7 Rf4 Kc6 Rf6+ Kb7 Rf4 Kc7 Ra5;

Yes, this was discussed on page 5. White probably wins even after the missed Nf5. White gets a bishop for three pawns, but in SF and Komodo lines, it ends up picking up an extra pawn or two, so then Black has to try to survive an endgame with just a pawn or two for a bishop.

[d]r4rk1/1p2Qpbp/2pp2p1/2n5/2PN1BP1/pP3B2/n6P/2KR3R w - - 0 1
SF10, PV=2, depth=35
+2.21 1.Kd2 Rfe8 2.Qxd6 Bxd4 3.Qxd4 Nxb3+ 4.Kc2 Nxd4+ 5.Rxd4 c5 6.Rd6 Nb4+ 7.Kb3 Rad8 8.Rhd1 Rxd6 9.Rxd6 a2 10.Rd1 Nd3 11.Bd2 Ne5 12.Bd5 Nxg4 13.Ra1 Nxh2 14.Rxa2 Re2 15.Ra8+ Kg7 16.Bc3+ Kh6 17.Bxf7 Nf3 18.Bd5 Re3 19.Bxb7 g5 20.Rc8 g4 21.Rxc5 g3 22.Rc6+ Kg5 23.Rc7 Kh6 24.Bxf3 Rxf3 25.Kb4 g2 26.Rg7 Rf2 27.c5
+2.13 1.Kc2 Rfe8 2.Qxd6 Nb4+ 3.Kc3 Na2+ 4.Kd2 Bxd4 5.Qxd4 Nxb3+ 6.Kc2 Nxd4+ 7.Rxd4 c5 8.Rd6 Nb4+ 9.Kb3 Rad8 10.Rhd1 Rxd6 11.Rxd6 a2 12.Rd1 Nd3 13.Bd2 Ne5 14.Bd5 Nxg4 15.Ra1 Nxh2 16.Rxa2 Re2 17.Bxb7 h5 18.Ra8+ Kh7 19.Bc3 Kh6 20.Rc8 Re7 21.Bd5 Ng4 22.Rxc5 f5 23.Rb5 Ne3

Komodo 13.2, PV=2, depth=25
+1.18 1.Kd2 Rfe8 2.Qxd6 Bxd4 3.Qxd4 Nxb3+ 4.Kc2 Nxd4+ 5.Rxd4 Nb4+ 6.Kb3 c5 7.Rd6 Rad8 8.Rd2 a2 9.Ra1 f6 10.Rad1 Kg7 11.g5 Nd3 12.gxf6+ Kxf6 13.Bh6 g5 14.Kxa2 Re3 15.Bd5 Nb4+ 16.Kb2 Nxd5 17.Rxd5 Re2+ 18.Kc3 Rxd5 19.Rxd5 g4 20.Bf4 Rf2
+1.11 1.Kc2 Nb4+ 2.Kc3 Na2+ 3.Kd2 Rfe8 4.Qxd6 Bxd4 5.Qxd4 Nxb3+ 6.Kc2 Nxd4+ 7.Rxd4 Nb4+ 8.Kb3 c5 9.Rd6 Rad8 10.Rd2 a2 11.Bxb7 Rd3+ 12.Rxd3 Nxd3 13.Bg3 Nb4 14.Ra1 Re3+ 15.Ka4 Rc3 16.Bd5 Rd3 17.g5 Nxd5 18.cxd5 Rxd5 19.Rxa2 Rxg5 20.Kb5 Rd5 21.Kc4 Rd4+ 22.Kxc5 Re4 23.Ra7 Kg7

[d]r3r1k1/1p3p1p/2p3p1/8/2PR1BP1/p4B2/n1K4P/7R b - - 0 5

SF10, depth=40
+2.20 5...c5 6.Rd6 Nb4+ 7.Kb3 Rad8 8.Bxb7 a2 9.Ra1 Rxd6 10.Bxd6 Re3+ 11.Ka4 Rc3 12.Bd5 Rd3 13.Be7 Nxd5 14.cxd5 Rxd5 15.Rxa2 f5 16.gxf5 Rxf5 17.Kb5 Kf7 18.Bxc5 Ke6 19.Kc4 Ke5 20.Bd4+ Ke4 21.Re2+ Kf3 22.Kd3 h5 23.Rb2 Rf4 24.Ra2 Rf5 25.Bg1 Rg5 26.Ba7 Rg2 27.Rxg2 Kxg2 28.h4

Komodo 13.2, depth=29
+1.26 5...Nb4+ 6.Kb3 Na6 7.Kxa3 Nc5+ 8.Kb2 h5 9.gxh5 Ne6 10.Re4 f5 11.Rxe6 Rxe6 12.Rd1 Ra4 13.Rd8+ Kh7 14.Rd7+ Kg8 15.Bd1 Rxc4 16.Bb3 Ree4 17.Bd6 gxh5 18.Rxb7 Re2+ 19.Ka3 Re3 20.Rb4 Rxb3+ 21.Kxb3 Rg4 22.Rc4 Kf7 23.Rxc6 Ke6 24.Bf4+

[Dann Corbit]

Some people don't like the Mona Lisa.
"Something's wrong with her eyebrows!"
"Is she smiling or not?"
"I thought the picture would be a lot bigger."

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If only perfection is beautiful, then nothing is beautiful.
On the other hand, the trained eye can find beauty in a swirl of mud on the porch, or a dandelion weed in the front yard.

[jp]

This is not the Mona Lisa. This is chess. People are not just saying they find the mud beautiful. They are denying the existence of the excrement covering the center of the painting.

[Dann Corbit]

To a farmer, there is nothing more beautiful than a big old pickup load of manure.

[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.

Hi Brendan,

I just came across this thread. Yes, very revealing game, plus of course I'm inclined to agree with most of what you've been saying on the thread too.

I think what is going on here is the power of the AZ/Leela move history concept, plus its MCTS search, coordinating together very well. (I'm expecting a mass of flak from people who won't understand what I have to say, but anyway, nothing unusual there, and I'm only going to say it because I guess you're the only one here who is going to understand it).

What's important about this game (not this 'position') is that white, although material ahead, is completely stuck to do anything. It's one of those positions where GM turns up seeing all the kibbitzers around the board, looks at it a bit, and says "what can white do?", shrugs and walks off. Meanwhile the kibbitzers all look a bit bemused. AB programs are a bit like those kibbitzers, AB evaluates each position in the tree, divorced from how it got there, so, as long as at the end of the long AB 'best' line it still has the material up, then that's the evaluation it returns. Big fail.
What is AZ/Leela doing in this game (note use of word game, not position)? Well, it creates lines of play
M1, M2, M3, ..... M61, M61 and so on. And it doesn't evaluate M61 alone, it evaluates the prior seven positions as well (that's the history element presented to the NN inputs) [M61, M60, M59 ..... M54, M53], it evaluates a kind of moving window of eight positions up the line.
Brief digression here, MCTS is not picking out a best line, it picks out an average of results of lines, and the lines it will see (when white piece is nastily pinned on d4) are a mass of fails (white moves something and the position falls apart) and a numbers of 'Okays', where white doesn't lose his piece on d4.
So, what the NN has learnt, is that when white is in the same situation on move M61 as he was on the seven priors back to M53, white is in a GM "What can white do?" situation, discovered by the MCTS search. All that's needed is the averaging search and the NN 'knowledge' that being bogged down for move after move, is not a good situation for white. AZ/Leela will know that "what can white do?" doesn't mean white is going to lose, but it means white as sure as hell isn't going to win - and curiously enough Leela 'score' is mostly in the draw zone, while AB program is +4 or whatever.

So, I guess what is happening is the power of the move history inputs, and the gradual NN learn over time that stuck=not very likely to win. I recollect getting flamed as an idiot for saying long ago that the 'physics' parallel is the AZ/Leela have effectively added a time dimension to the evaluation. AB just measures mass and position, basically, it has two dimensions to work with. NN-MCTS also measures along the time axis, that's the eight history positions presented to the NN. With mass, position and time, you can get many concepts (see Physics) that you can't get with mass and position alone.
That's why you're correct arguing in this thread. The level of knowledge is way beyond the old AB method, it sees something they don't even consider and I'm not at all sure they ever would be able to. Time axis, another dimension. Also the fundament of the knowledge about fortresses that Leela finds so easy, and AB not. Time axis.

[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.

Hi Chris,

Yeah I get what you're saying.

Regarding the "GM walks up and says 'what can white do?' and then walks off", I agree totally.

I have analyzed with IMs and GMs in the past and witnessed exactly this type of thing take place.

That special "understanding" of a position.

Hanging out with strong players and analyzing really helps improve ones own chess...much more than slaving over Stockfish and drooling over meaningless PVs.

I remember once I played a training game while a very strong friend watched and when I made the final move, inducing resignation, my opponent suggested an alternate line, which was also good.

My strong friend said "Yes that is probably what an engine would do, but that's messy...Brendan played the GM move, it is clean and leaves no counterplay". I was obviously happy to hear such praise from somebody at such a high level, because I still remember it fondly now.

Regardless, no need to defend me here. I gave up on this thread.

All I was doing was sharing a lovely idea with real CHESS FANS (not engine slaves)...

...and the typical dickheads sling mud and spread negativity in spite of imo, one of the most interesting ideas to come up in a chess position here.

As I said, they were probably doing the same thing 20 years ago when Fritz 7 or Junior 7 or Hiarcs 8 played a nice game.

They probably called Kasparov a "pazter" because he "blundered" the exchange on c3 vs Movsesian in Sarajevo 2000, since engines at the time didn't approve.

I can remember, I played a game back when I was 16 years old...this was around March 2000, so 20 years ago.

In the following position, my opponent had just played 15...Bc6 hitting my rook on h1 and I responded 16.Bxg6!!

[d]r6r/ppp1kBb1/2b3p1/4q2p/8/1QP3P1/PP1NPP2/R3K2R w KQ - 0 16

At the time, no engine on my computer could find this move.

Fritz, Hiarcs, Junior and co, all wanted to play nonsense like 16.Rh4?!

These days any engine finds 16.Bxg6 immediately...makes me wonder what these guys will call a "blunder" in another 20 years.

FYI: The game continued according to my calculations (I had calculated the mate in 7 which occurred in the game, plus other lines) and ended:

[pgn][Event "?"]
[Site "?"]
[Date "????.??.??"]
[Round "?"]
[White "?"]
[Black "?"]
[Result "*"]
[SetUp "1"]
[FEN "r6r/ppp1kBb1/2b3p1/4q2p/8/1QP3P1/PP1NPP2/R3K2R w KQ - 0 16"]
[PlyCount "13"]

{[#]} 16. Bxg6 Bxh1 17. Qf7+ Kd8 18. Nf3 Bxf3 19. O-O-O+ Kc8 20. Qd7+ Kb8 21.
Qd8+ Rxd8 22. Rxd8# *
[/pgn]


No biggie re: this thread anyway,in the rare case I share stuff it isn't for the "haters".

[BrendanJNorman]

To a farmer, there is nothing more beautiful than a big old pickup load of manure.

Don't waste your time, buddy.

[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 nice. Thanks for sharing.

Glad you appreciated the idea as much as I did.

[BrendanJNorman]

Man, where are the Ethereal wins threads smh

Sorry buddy, I'm a huge fan of Ethereal too...will share a nice game or two when I can.

[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.

What was the hardware (processor and threads used, hash size, gpu)?

What were the time conditions?

Nothing too powerful.

I'm using a laptop with:

- 8th generation Intel® CoreTM i7-8565U processor.
- 16GB Ram
- NVIDIA GeForce MX250

So not very powerful, but it's all I need.

Time control was 3+2.

I use computer chess to mine for ideas...especially in openings I like, not so much to search for some "truth".

[BrendanJNorman]

With a BISHOP vs a queen?

A bishop vs a queen but WHAT a bishop. Very entertaining game, Brendan. Thanks for sharing.

Best
Dan H.

Yes. I can remember when I was a teen, I read an article in a chess magazine where an IM had annotated his win over a computer (which I'm pretty sure was Fritz).

He did so by exploiting a situation where the engine grabbed a pawn and didn't realize it'd be stuck in a permanent (as in, for the rest of the game) pin.

So all Fritz could do was shuffle it's pieces while this IM improved his position.

This game by lc0 has a similar idea (although in the IM's game, it was a pin along a rank, not a diagonal as in this case).

Somewhere in this thread ChrisW talks about this special "understanding" that lc0 has which AB engines struggle with.

Very fascinating. Especially the games it can produce on such a low level GPU.