Human versus Machine

[Guenther]

Nice to see some discussion going on here.
I even kind of managed to read one or 2 words, so parts of the forum seem readable.
Just to remind you 2 days more to go from the free promotion, don't forget to download: https://www.amazon.com/Human-Versus-Mac ... 8&qid=&sr=

Top engines are weak, everyone knows that, you just need the right kind of approach and...having read "Human versus Machine".
Later

They are NOT weak, have you tried to play versus Komodo latest version? it can give top GM like Nakamura odds, and he is one of the best player, if not the best player to play against engines.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hotuuH-_jjw

Troll vs. troll, I hope for an entertaining clash.

[Chessqueen]

Comparing 'The Secret of Chess' and 'Human versus Machine: How to beat Stockfish and Komodo', I wrote the latter much quicker, the former took whole 4 months, but the interesting thing is how notions presented in 'The Secret of Chess' are visible in the games showcased in 'Human versus Machine'.

For example, the games exhibit patterns and notions like:

- twice backward shelter pawn on f7
- pointed chains
- white and black KID structures
- fully closed sides of the board, etc., etc.

all of which could be found in 'The Secret of Chess'.

Of course, it is actually the other way round: the many thousands of games(over 50 000, to be clear) I have played against engines and top engines and the knowledge I derived from them are reflected in the knowledge presented on the pages of 'The Secret of Chess'.

That is how I verified that knowledge: by playing an infinite number of games against the very top, and it seems to work.

If anyone would like to consider the games in 'Human versus Machine' as fake ones, well, you simply don't have a point, looking at the specific positions, you will not find even a single one that even distantly resembles any human or engine game you could find in any database.

There are simply no such games and positions, so who came up with the concept and system?
Also, checking evaluations, you will easily see the games are for real. Current Stockfish development version still does not understand most of them.

Again, why would beating Stockfish and Komodo be less interesting than reproducing a routine game from a public database?

Stockfish doesn't need to understand anything. It plays chess at a level that you could not even comprehend... who cares about fluke positions. Sure humans can understand when they've been mated and stuff like that. But chess is nothing more than brute force and computation. Computers have proven that no doubt. There's nothings left anymore for human interferences. Maybe you should consider playing a super GM. Not sure what there is to prove about playing chess versus code that can do things that the human brain simply cannot. The idea of understanding things is completely overrated which is pretty hilarious if you ask me.

Here is a reply from one of the biggest troll in Computer Chess Forum, remember what Pichy wrote several months ago, well here it is in case you did not read it. " Some human Blitz player like GM Nakamura and GM MVL can make any computer spin their CPU and Nodes per second without any good results, but Komodo have to give GM MVL or GM Nakamura a good odd"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exgVvSauvhQ

[Chessqueen]

Comparing 'The Secret of Chess' and 'Human versus Machine: How to beat Stockfish and Komodo', I wrote the latter much quicker, the former took whole 4 months, but the interesting thing is how notions presented in 'The Secret of Chess' are visible in the games showcased in 'Human versus Machine'.

For example, the games exhibit patterns and notions like:

- twice backward shelter pawn on f7
- pointed chains
- white and black KID structures
- fully closed sides of the board, etc., etc.

all of which could be found in 'The Secret of Chess'.

Of course, it is actually the other way round: the many thousands of games(over 50 000, to be clear) I have played against engines and top engines and the knowledge I derived from them are reflected in the knowledge presented on the pages of 'The Secret of Chess'.

That is how I verified that knowledge: by playing an infinite number of games against the very top, and it seems to work.

If anyone would like to consider the games in 'Human versus Machine' as fake ones, well, you simply don't have a point, looking at the specific positions, you will not find even a single one that even distantly resembles any human or engine game you could find in any database.

There are simply no such games and positions, so who came up with the concept and system?
Also, checking evaluations, you will easily see the games are for real. Current Stockfish development version still does not understand most of them.

Again, why would beating Stockfish and Komodo be less interesting than reproducing a routine game from a public database?

Stockfish doesn't need to understand anything. It plays chess at a level that you could not even comprehend... who cares about fluke positions. Sure humans can understand when they've been mated and stuff like that. But chess is nothing more than brute force and computation. Computers have proven that no doubt. There's nothings left anymore for human interferences. Maybe you should consider playing a super GM. Not sure what there is to prove about playing chess versus code that can do things that the human brain simply cannot. The idea of understanding things is completely overrated which is pretty hilarious if you ask me.

Here is a reply from one of the biggest troll in Computer Chess Forum, remember what Pichy wrote several months ago, well here it is in case you did not read it. " Some human Blitz player like GM Nakamura and GM MVL can make any computer spin their CPU and Nodes per second without any good results, but Komodo have to give GM MVL or GM Nakamura a good odd"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=exgVvSauvhQ

I would like to see Komodo playing either GM Nakamura or GM MVL without its Knight on this position ==>
[D]rnbqkbnr/pppppppp/8/8/8/8/PPPPPPPP/R1BQKBNR b - - 25 1